User talk:Jehochman/Archive 4

Starting 02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

69.106.230.196

Hey Jehochman, congrats on getting the mop, sorry I wasn't around to support your RFA (was on a wikibreak).
Could you have a look at IP User 69.106.230.196's contribs to my talk page and to Talk:feminism. They claim to have held an account previously and already know WP's rules and code of conduct but they're adding screed to my talk page about abortion. 69.106.230.196 has a problem with the phraseology of "feminists campaign for the right to abortion" - this terminology (right to abortion) is not my pov - it is taken verbatim from a number of books about feminism's campaign for women's rights. 69.106.230.196 takes issue with the definition of the word "right" in relation to abortion but (as yet) has no sources for their stance.--Cailil ^talk 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman, sorry to bug you about this user again but User:69.106.230.196 is back on their soapbox but now using a different IP (User:69.106.250.135 [1]). 69.106.230.196 had already been issued with a level 4 warning, so these new contributions are after a final warning--Cailil ^talk 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence
		I, Folic Acid, award you, Jehochman, this Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st class) for your outstanding conduct to date as an admin (and a new one, at that).  Folic_Acid | talk  13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Noticeboard

El C, when you deleted that noticeboard (how often do you get to delete one of those?), you left the talk page. Was that your intention, or unintention? - Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not often enough, let me tell ya! No, not intentionally. But I see no harm in leaving it undeleted. El_C 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's fine to leave it there in case people want to ask what happened. How about leaving a link to the MfD? Yes, I'll do that. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan - It's Li :)

Hey Jonathan, dropping you a line so you know it's me (Li) with this id. Going work on my profile page this weekend after catching up on the stuff I missed out on at the beginning of the week.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storyspinner (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of WP:DE/N

WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, CSDWarnBot. I've deleted it myself. You're welcome. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Seeing that you've recently joined the Admin club, I hope you because a successful one. I really appreciate the compliment you left on my talk page. VoL†ro/\/Force 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not in a rush, but it feels good that my contributions are not going unnoticed. VoL†ro/\/Force 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We block dead people?

Since when is it inline with the blocking policy to block someone for being dead? -- John Reaves 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's always been done before. The deceased person obviously can't edit, and nobody is allowed to use a Wikipedia account besides the owner. What possible harm can a block cause? Leaving the account free to edit can only lead to mischief.

Somebody else was in fact editing, and we have no idea who. That's a solid reason to block an account. Another possibility to consider is that when an account announces the death of its owner, there's a possibility that the account has been hacked and it's a hoax. That wasn't the case here, but we didn't know that at the time.

Perhaps this all should be written into policy, but maybe this level of detail is instruction creep. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this being done before. But if someone else was editing, I suppose that reasoning makes sense. -- John Reaves 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't hear about editors passing away too often. There's a list Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. You can see these accounts have been blocked to prevent abuse. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Lindsey (from ANI)

Hey Dude, to be honest, I didn't know it was a dispute or there was a problem (or would be). I went to the store and come back and I have created a major "thing" on ANI. Something I didn't intend to do. I have no stake in the Hal Lindsey article, none. I haven't actually watched the guy's show, only seen TBN for a split second when flipping through the channels, I really have no stake there. I was only attempted to remove edits that could be in violation of the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule (not sure what the exact rule is). If I messed up, then I do greatly apologize. I know radio stations and User:Bee Cliff River Slob came over into the radio station relm with the same cruft and I reverted there and thought doing some cleanup for the other pages he hit would be nice too, hence my edits. Again, if I stepped on some toes in my cleanup, I do apologize. I have been here a year, but I am still learning all the rules and whatnot. Again, I am sorry. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely don't worry about it. You didn't do anything worth discussing there. It's no big deal. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad, I was worried I made a whole bunch of people mad.  :) Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Sadi Carnot

For the reasons given here, I've taken the unusual step of reversing your indefinite block of Sadi Carnot. Please remember that indefinite blocks of established users by single admins are virtually never justified. Blocks are meant to be preventive, and the length of your block is obviously excessive in relation to the problem that needs to be solved. If you want a ban, take the matter to ArbCom, but I doubt very much that they will issue a ban in such a case. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block is an undefined length, not an infinite length. I wanted to get assurances from the user before unblocking him. Are you willing to mentor this fellow and monitor his contributions to make sure he doesn't relapse? You should be aware that we announced this block far and wide just in case somebody would be willing to unblock him. That strategy has been effective, because here you are. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT violation, among other sins), most certainly has an axe to grind with Sadi Carnot: see Talk:Capture-bonding. Yes, I'm willing to discuss the matter further with Sadi Carnot to explain to him the error of his ways. Physchim62 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, Keith Henson has definite issues. I actually didn't give any weight to his comments. Keith and Sadi were involved in a case where I was the mediator, so I am familiar with both. Coren, Kww and MER-C provided evidence against Sadi. Those three are all solid contributors with no apparent motivations other than protecting the encyclopedia. I trust you to counsel Sadi and monitor him. I'm running out the door, but when I come back, I will post something to explain that at ANI. Meanwhile, could you please rearrange your "witch hunt" comment to be a bit more diplomatic? If you look at how the thread started, I was trying hard to

WP:AGF with respect to Sadi because I had always found him to be a polite editor. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

JH, I've been reviewing this Sadi Carnot issue and I fully support your actions in this case and I endorse the reapplication of the indefinite block. I think Physchim62 is profoundly and disturbingly out-of-touch with community standards and I would have reblocked the account myself if it hadn't already been done. Sarah

Oh, I hadn't noticed that it was reblocked. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't; I misread what someone wrote. I've reblocked it myself. I think it is quite obvious that there is overwhelming support on ANI for the block at this time. Sadi can post his response on his talk page if he wishes and the case can be reviewed in light of whatever he has to say but I cannot see any legitimate reason for arbitrarily overturning the block. Sarah 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ban will make it easier when the socks turn up. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed considering either an RFC or an ArbCom against your original block, as I believe that your approach to blocking is detrimental to the project. In the meantime, may I request that you remove the maintenance tags that you have added to articles to which Sadi Carnot has contributed. Your actions in doing so have greatly increased the amount of work for other editors in cheching these articles. If you are worried about the veracity of their content, please feel free to compile a list and to post it at WikiProject Chemistry, where it will get expert attention. Do not forget that there are over 28,000 articles related to chemistry on Wikipedia, so you tags will be gloriously ignored unless we actually know where they are. Given your other comments on this case, you may consider this a warning against disruption of Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take it to

WP:ANI for reverting my actions without discussion. You've done it three times now. The warning you left above, and your accusations of "witch hunt" don't help either. Please stop before this gets out of hand. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, firs of all my apologies for bringing it up here since I know nothing about Sadi Carnot or chemistry. But I'm an old friend of Physchim62 and I would like you to take a look at RfA:Catalonia.

There Physchim62 played a major role: He began that Request for Arbitration due to the vicious debates that were being hold on Catalonia and Valencian Community articles, Physchim62 was abusing of his administrative powers by blocking indefenitely anons and new users, threatening whoever disagreed him and letting a very disruptive user act without any punishment.

Ironically, the RfA he opened to punish those who disagreed him was closed with a blocking for the user Physchim62 was being lenient to.

Sorry if it's not related, but the situation with Sadi Carnot and his protection by Physchim62 reminded me on a previous actuation by him.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that case. I'm not a mission to discredit Physchim62. I just want Arbcom to clarify the ground rules for community banning disruptive users. They are aware of that case, and if they see a pattern, they can do something about it on their own initiative. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture Bonding

Could you take a look at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capture-bonding? Thanks very much. Keith Henson 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a message at

WP:COIN requesting a volunteer help with your request. Thank you for doing the Right Thing™.- Jehochman ^Talk 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

SC

My reasoning here is less for the sake of SC than it is for the sake of PC62. PC62 was very upset about this, not because he agrees with SC's crackpottery (quite the opposite), but because a) SC has been useful on historical articles, b) SC wasn't warned first (which is true), and in general c) he (PC62) felt it was such a witch-hunt atmosphere he was going to resign his op bit over this, and possibly even take it to arbcom on a point of principle.

I think that would be a terrible waste of everyone's time and effort, and that my solution is an improvement. DS 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason the reaction was so strong is that a whole bunch of people found out they had been snookered. And the more they looked, the worse it got. PC62 makes good points above, and Jehochman got what he wanted which was someone willing to take responsibility for SC if and when he comes back. So I see no reason things should not work out OK.

That still leaves a considerable mystery as to what SC was doing and why. I am tempted to ask U of Michigan (Ann Arbor) graduates from 1998 if those who knew him can illuminate the mystery.

Keith Henson 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, folks. It's not within my power to overturn a community ban. The only way is to appeal to Arbcom, or to start a new discussion at ANI requesting an unban. That would be premature because Sadi hasn't even commented yet, and he hasn't taken responsibility for past problems. The resolution of this case will be handled at Arbcom. Hopefully we can all come to an agreement there, shake hands, and avoid wasting time. I have no bad feelings towards any of you. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of...

The organization mentioned in this new page: Link Building Association .? --Versageek 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me deletes. No. It's Spam™. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jehochman

I wonder if you can help? I understand that administrators can view deleted information. If you find time, could you please tell me:

• When were the article(s) deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 created?
• When was the account User:Wavesmikey created?
• When was the account User:Sadi Carnot created?
• Less importantly, when was the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage created, and by whom? An apparent copy of the article here looks a lot like the work of User:Sadi Carnot, but it was apparently written by User:Elsys.

Feel free to edit my comment to add answers. I quite understand you may be busy or otherwise unable to answer my questions so please feel no obligation at all. Thanks ~

TreeKittens 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Your answers:

• When were the article(s) deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 created? -- a. created 24 May 2005 by User:209.86.97.41 / b. same article, must have been undeleted.
• When was the account User:Wavesmikey created? - first edit 21 June 2005
• When was the account User:Sadi Carnot created? - first edit 27 December 2005
• Less importantly, when was the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage created, and by whom? An apparent copy of the article here looks a lot like the work of User:Sadi Carnot, but it was apparently written by User:Elsys. -- Created 2 January 2007 by Elsys, edited heavily by him and Sadi Carnot, but not at the same time. All other editors were resisting the article.

Cheers - Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for helping me, but I think I didn't ask my question properly.

TreeKittens 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Both accounts have deleted contributions, but they are later than the ones I cited above. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - sorry to pester you! Peace --

TreeKittens 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Bernard J. Taylor

Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn

Would you like to tweak this?

I've started a rough draft at User:Durova/Wikisleuthing to explain what this is about. Contributions welcome.

Regarding reverting back the Toto page

I've gone back and changed all the bias and fan writing that Steve McVey made. Some of what he wrote was an improvement so I kept it. I just took out the bias stuff, everything is good now. Thank you for all your help. Writer1400

IRC cloak request

I am Jehochman on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Jehochman. Thanks. --- Jehochman ^Talk 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62 as a mentor?

I strongly object to the idea of Physchim62 as a mentor to Sadi Carnot. I don't believe he has the will or desire to carefully cross-check every obscure reference that Sadi comes up with, because I believe that Physchim62 has not come to grips with Sadi Carnot as a fraud.Kww 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the first sign of trouble this will be reported at

consensus which means that at all times we try to compromise and come to an agreement, even on the eve of arbitration. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Bengrove (ship)

I didn't want to mess with your userpage, (to fix the red link) but wanted to let you know I took the stub we have and expanded on it a bit and sourced it a bit(and will be working on it a bit more if I can find some media on it), I was wondering if you'd take a look at it and make sure all looks well, (sadly I am fairly insecure in my writing abilities, most of my work has been CE/spelling corrections.) Thanks for your time. Dureo 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article name to better reflect name - SS Bengrove. Dureo 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I'm impressed by your suprising acts of civilry and good faith toward Matt57, dispite the conflicts, so I award you this barnstar. Yahel Guhan 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that, but I can hardly expect Matt to let go of past disputes unless I do too. If you need any further help from me, just let me know. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2

Thanks for the funny note and the barnstar; probably only you and I "get it". I was tempted to say something funny on your RfA, but was afraid it might backfire since, well, my writing sucks and it probably wouldn't come out funny.

The problems with SC are deep and long-standing; being name "worst" by him could be considered an honor (I suppose you'll put that forward as evidence in the ArbCom case as an example of his behavior?). I support your efforts wrt the ban, but this brings to me to another issue. To me, the most important issue. My prose isn't particularly eloquent or succinct, so I ask you to bear with me and understand what I'm trying to convey.

I have typed and deleted and re-typed and re-deleted a response to the change you made to the banning policy, and decided instead to discuss it first with you. It's never wise to base policy on one case, no matter how strong it is, and not every case is like Sadi Carnot. His is not the only case before ArbCom right now involving the need to clarify the ban policy, and I'm afraid your change will introduce a worse kind of abuse than the abuse you seek to correct. Did you follow the MfD of the Community Sanction Noticeboard and the types of problems that led to its deletion? There are worse evils than "reduc(ing) Wikipedia's security to the level of the least competent, most gullible sysop" and that is elevating bans to the level of the strongest abusers and votes by popularity contests. Recent abuse at the Community Sanction Noticeboard led to its deletion and confusion about the ban policy. Editors were site banned based on "votes", not discussion, and in spite of several editors willing to unblock. That kind of abuse, IMO, does far more damage to the longterm health of Wikipedia because it causes productive editors to leave in disgust. After viewing multiple instances of abusive bans or attempted bans, I almost quit editing Wiki. The community can deal with the SCs, but more harm is done when productive, hard-working, well meaning editors tire of witnessing abuse and leave. Discussion, not votes, is the way to go, and when that fails, ArbCom is the next step.

IMO, ban discussions should proceed as this one did: [2]. I hope you'll read it carefully as it frames my basis for how I view sitebans and the discussion of them; the discussion proceeded over at least four days, and I was able to check in daily, even while on vacation, before decisions were made. Although I was (and remain, both on- and off-Wiki) the victim of an extreme attack and harassment that undermines Wiki and my editing, in the face of overwhelming consensus that the editor should "not only be off Wikipedia forever, but probably in jail or a mental institution as well", one admin argued that mentoring would be a better approach. He was not gullible; he was right. Had this editor been banned, the harassment I deal with would only be worse. It is up to me now, if I'm tired of the harassment, to bring it before ArbCom; Wiki treated every editor as fairly as possible. And even though I remain under attack, I would much rather live with the harassment than to accede to a system that allows for any group to force any editor off of Wiki permanently, because THAT is more dangerous in the longrun because it alienates and embitters good editors.

I fear that the changes you made to the banning policy will solve one problem (the SCs and Zs) at the expense of opening the door to a much larger problem of systemic abuse by groups of editors promoting agendas. I guess I prefer gullible to the more insidious harm that comes from the other kinds of abuse I've witnessed on Wiki. I really oppose that change in wording to the ban policy, and I strongly encourage you to consider that there are other sides of that issue and to investigate the issues I mention. I hope I've got some credibility with you, so that you'll work to understand the broader issues, beyond one bad editor here and there, that concern me. As you can see, your change to the banning policy would have made my life simpler; my harasser would have been banned by overwhelming consensus against only one admin advocating for mentoring. A ban wouldn't have been the best outcome at that time; admin abuse chases off more good editors and does more long-term harm to the Project than the SCs and Zs, who can be dealt with by other means. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My approach is (1) stop them, and then (2) offer a legitimate way back. Indefinite blocks aren't infinite. Perhaps the banning policy should say that any administrator can unblock a user on condition of mentoring them and taking responsibility for their edits. I said this to Physchim62, that I would agree to an unblock if Physchim62 would take responsibility for Sadi. P62 waffled and then unblocked before arranging mentorship. That's ass backwards, which is how we ended up where we are today. Turning loose a problem editor before arrangements are made is reckless. Nonetheless, if an admin wants to unblock a banned user and mentor them, that's something that the community should always support. Would it help to write that into policy? - Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is the whole introduction of two classes (de facto banned and consensus banned).[3] I don't think there should be any such thing as a consensus banned as you've defined it, as it opens the door to the same kind of abuse that was occurring at the Community Sanction Noticeboard. I support the long-standing policy which was if any admin was willing to unblock, there is no ban; discussion ensues at WP:AN, and it goes to ArbCom if admins can't work it out. Again, I'm far more worried about the type of abuse we saw at CSN than I am about the CSs and Zs, who can be dealt with. Your concern is to "stop them"; you can stop them by putting in place a one-month block (see the Z case above) while the community has time to discuss and resolve without wheel warring. By doing that, we can develop more consensus, better long term solutions wihtout pressure, and avoid potential for abuse. The kind of abuse of bans I saw at CSN and other places makes me want to leave Wiki forever and simply not lend my hard work and good will to a Project that tolerates railroading, while the harassment I live with as a result of an imperfect ban process is not something I can't deal with or which will cause me to leave Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you propose a new process?

If a user might need to be banned, the blocking admin can place a one month block. At the same time, they initiate a ban discussion at

WP:AN

reaches a consensus to ban, topic ban, or unblock with or without conditions, the original block is refactored accordingly. If the discussion leads to no consensus, the case is referred to Arbcom.

This process would prevent wheel warring, protect the encyclopedia, and allow administrators to resolve their own disputes most of the time.- Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding is that *is* (or was, before the change) the process currently in place, and a change proposal isn't needed. Did I miss something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, did I start this? :-) I found that "users" subpage by Sadi Carnot and pointed it out at

WP:RFARB. Another note I left led to Jehochman leaving me a note, and I came here and saw that Sandy was here, and went to Sandy's talk page and saw that the Users page had been pointed out. I should have thought of the barnstar myself... Anyway, Jehochman responded to my concern that AN and ANI are not really suited for the type of discussion that took place about Sadi Carnot (AfD tends to be more forthright about BS in articles), but I like the suggestion give above. I never really followed CSN, though I caught the tail-end of the MfD. I have noticed longer and more disruptive discussions on ANI since CSN was shut down. I always thought ANI was for quick stuff, and AN for the longer stuff, so maybe AN is a suitable place for discussions. I wonder if the shorter discussions there will suffer though. Whenever noticeboards are shut down, there is a period of adjustment as different communities clustering around various noticeboards adjust to accommodate 'refugees' from the closed down noticeboard. What might help is better management of the noticeboards, with off-topic stuff directed to the right noticeboard. Anyway, hopefully things will work out. Carcharoth 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, you didn't start it <grin> ... I was very worried about the banning policy even before the SC situation came to light. If you take the time to read through the link to a banning discussion I gave above, you may see why I stridently disagree with this newfound notion that WP:AN isn't the right place for these discussions. I strongly believe it *is* the right place, and the current *perception* of problems surfaced as a result of the abuse that was occurring at CSN and its subsequent shutdown, and that some editors and admins honestly came to believe that we can "pass out bans like candy" based on "votes". It's a dangerous precedent: more dangerous than the random SC situation. I strongly hope we just go back to the way it was before all that CSN nonsense, and that folks will settle in to realizing that it was the aberration, and that the long-standing way of handling things on WP:AN (as in the link I gave above) worked. I'm very concerned about the abuse, and if anything will eventually cause me to give up on Wiki, it will be watching editors be railroaded based on selective application of policies by groups. Please keep in mind that SC is not the only banning situation before ArbCom right now, and not all situations are as clear as his. SC was clearly a long-standing problem, but we can handle that via the usual processes. I don't believe in any separate noticeboard where users can be banned; the abuse was occurring because groups could ban users without broad community awareness or input. It belongs on

WP:AN, in plain sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with plain sight. Can we get the banning policy clarified to document the consensus about how the process works so we have something to point to when an admin starts acting impulsively? - Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the banning policy was, no ban if any admin was willing to overturn. Can we get that back in? I know it works against the SC situation, but I'm confident we can deal with that. I hesitate to get involved in policy talk pages, though; nasty past experiences there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree to 1400 admins each having individual power to veto a ban. That means there are no bans, because one fool will always oppose just to show off. If a discussion leads to a consensus that the editor should be banned, then that should do it. If somebody doesn't like the result, they can appeal to Arbcom. This site isn't as small as it used to be, and the financial motivations behind abuse are much stronger now that we are a top 10 website. Times change and so must we. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your points; still very worried about the downside of absue potential. One thing that would help is that we not shuffle ban discussions off to some obscure noticeboard and keep them centralized at

WP:AN, where they get broader input. But a question; are there actually 1400 *active* admins, and how often do we see the kind of wheel warring that occurred with Sadi Carnot? If we separate the issues (that the ban shouldn't have been overturned, it should have been discussed in depth), why not go back to the old way? The ban was put in place when no admin was willing to overturn; maybe we should do as you said above, and formalize it to a one-month block discussion period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The only problem with that is it may do some people an injustice if they are blocked for a month and then the block is eventually overturned. The blocked user could discuss on their talk page, or be unblocked to participate in the AN discussion, and that kind of unblocking shouldn't be seen as wheel-warring. The unblocking admin would make clear that the person being unblocked should only edit at AN, and that others should feel free to reblock if the user becomes disruptive. Oh dear, it gets complicated. Carcharoth 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, we need to separate blocking and banning. This concept of indef block mutating to become a ban needs to be deleted because it encourages wheel warring and unnecessary indef blocking. We block per WP:BLOCK. Separately we can propose a ban, or other community sanctions at WP:AN. The two are independent. I think that solution removes the most problems. We still have evil voting, but that's a problem for another day.- Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. Please check this version. The concept of an indef block morphing into a ban is marked historical. Bans are serious. When needed they should be discussed at a central noticeboard. The idea of indefing and then another admin overturning is a big problem, as we have seen. That sort of block-pong should not be encouraged. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's no mention at all of the long-standing policy, "If no administrator is willing to unblock a user, and the user has been blocked after due consideration by the community, the user can be considered banned." Whole thing makes me uncomfortable, too much abuse potential, I disagree with the direction it's heading, but since I hate policy discussions, I'm going to bow out now. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be more to all of this than meets the eye, and I must not be privy to something, because it's disconcertingly confusing to watch all that is unraveling with the various blocking and banning situations while the policy page remains strangely quiet (seems it's only you and I and a few others talking there, so I have to guess the real conversation is happening elsewhere). Since I'm not even an admin, I 'spose I have no business opining, but I don't want to be part of a Project that is governed by mob rule, even in the cases where we may ultimately be right (such as I believe is the case for SC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the policy and it's basically correct at this point. Read it once more. If you figure out where the real conversation is happening, let me know, so I can join. We are talking at bit at

requests for arbitration. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

ah, thanks for pointing me at that conversation; no wonder I felt in the dark :-) At least it's being seriously considered. I hope that my concern that it discussion not be based only on the SC case be taken into account, and that they are considering the other banning cases before them in the same vein. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we all should have a pow wow and get everybody on the same page. I don't really how the banning process is set up, as long as it works and we understand the process. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to WP:BAN

Erm, where is your consensus for your changes to WP:BAN? After my comments about your handling of the Sadi Carnot case (you have still to provide the list of pages which you tagged), I must formally warning you against disrupting Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were gentle, and were discussed. Nobody else has reverted them. I need to remind you that you cannot use sysop tools against me while we are involved in a dispute. It is extremely unwise for you to threaten to do so. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jehochman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at no personal attack " policies. Thank you.

Might I remind you that this was not a sysop action. Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The threat is obvious. You are going to leave me "warnings" and then go to ANI to request somebody to block me. Don't try that game. We are at Arbitration, and the dispute can be settled there through civil discourse. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:BAN can be fixed by a community discussion which will probably last more than four days and will involve more users than have commented at present. I have not asked you to be banned at ANI, that's your game. I have asked for review of a potentially controversial action. Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This is a very emotional issue. It is worthwhile to engage more people in the discussion at ANI. Our case isn't the only one like this. It may be time for Wikipedia to rethink the community banning process and clarify it to prevent good faith administrators for getting into disputes with one another. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot case

With this edit, you are returning to your habits of attacking users for their beliefs rather than their actions. You have obviously learnt nothing from this fiasco, and I can only hope that ArbCom gives you the cluestick beatingvery firm explanation as to why you have consistently ignored good faith and any arguments which run counter to your own, made personal attacks on users and have disrupted Wikipedia by your hysteria that you deserve. You are well aware of what my real response to the feeling of having to implement such obviously ill-discussed and ill-argumented bans was—I asked to resign as an administrator and only agreed not to so that I could participate in a soluton to this problem. You are crying for rights which you have systematically refused other participants in this case, myself included. I will stop myself from putting into words my other opinions of your behavior. Physchim62 (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor the above remark for civility. Wikipedia does not issue "beatings". It is unseemly for an administrator to make such a threat. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "cluestick beating" is a common admin phrase for telling someone (often another admin) exactly why they are completely wrong. I have no lessons on civility to receive from you, I am afraid: you are aware as to why from more private conversations. Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deserve as much respect as any other user. You may use phrases like cluestick beating with your friends, but not with me. I don't care if rudeness is standard behavior around here. I don't approve of it. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you deserve as much respect as any other user who makes actions such as yours. I try not to descend to the level which you use with others. Physchim62 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation isn't going any place good. Please refrain from further discussion here. Let's agree to disagree, and take it to arbitration instead. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict between you and me is very minor in the scheme of things. The bigger issue is how can Wikipedia most effectively deal with disruptive users. I suggest focus on clarification of the policy rather than attacking each other. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down

I'm certainly on your side, but I can tell you that your reaction to Physchim62's asininity is not helping your cause. An onlooker is going to think of you as a whiner. Kww 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) OK, I'll wait until something actually happens before I whine. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COIN Comment Blanking

Thanks for the heads-up. I have no issues with the courtesy blanking, now that the issue is apparently resolved, and since he only deleted comments that I had struck-through anyway. There's always the historical record if ever needed. Thanks again! Arakunem^Talk 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bonding

Would you please try to figure out what Keith is talking about on

Talk:Capture bonding#I agree? I am utterly unable to see the difference between the term used in abnormal and evolutionary psychology. Publicola 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This topic makes my head spin. Maybe we need to contact the relevant WikiProjects or open an RfC to get more comments. This article has been to Mediation Cabal and now AfD with no clear resolution. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive users

Nope, no one has bothered me usually, thanks for asking. I would however, without naming them, have faced a few editors who've come to me and tried to tell me to stay away from certain articles. Maybe you know who they are but that doesnt matter; I'll try to keep it impartial. If there's no administrative official consensus on me working on a certain article, then they have no right to tell me to stay away from those articles. They should be warned in fact, not to own an article like this. An article is an article, its public. Obviously that was a violation of

WP:OWN. If I violate any policies on articles e.g. consistently removing sourced material, then I can be warned for that. Thats perfectly ok. I think that was the only case where I got bothered a lot. I will say that one characteristic of disruptive users is that they are unable to see things other than from a personal-issue point of view i.e. - well you know what I mean. "You're editing this article because you want to attack me" - well thats not true. People should not read more into what is just there. I'm editing it because I want to make sure it complies with the site's standards. In any case though, disruptive users dont win in the end, without doubt. Thats it, I havent faced any other disruptive editors to complain about. I've also in my opinion been blocked too strongly and if there's anything such as disruptive adminship, maybe thats it. I got a month's long block for what. That was too long, for nothing. Thats it. Thats all the disruptive activity that I've faced and yes I'll call it disruptive because it was unfair. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

We are trying to improve the quality of adminship around here. Thank you for expressing your concerns. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great. Also wanted to add, that I wasnt looking for answers or debate on what I went through, but just wanted to give feedback since you asked. If you want to improve adminship quality and make admins think twice before they do something wrong, then a system to de-sysop them will keep them in line, really. That is the need of the day. Some people say trolls will misuse that system, well, no system is perfect but it can be very good. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Knights Templar

WP:COI? There has been no response. What would you suggest now? I have left a similar note on Elonka's talk page --Sannhet 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sri Lanka resolution

Pls see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_articles_dispute_resolution_in_effect. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Per my RfA

Thanks for the note on my request, I see your suggestion and appreciate the idea. Would you be willing to be my "admin coach"? Rudget _{Contributions} 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to coach or mentor you. Please contact me when the RFA closes. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wanting to assist me if I get the mop, I'm going offline now though. I'll definitely help with the DYK suggestion tomorrow. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for all the help you gave me in the RfA, which closed with 39 supports, 15 opposed and 1 neutral. However, I'd like to decline your offer of helping me after the request, because I feel I need to gain my own experience through channels, that I choose, because that is when I feel I will get recognised as a responsible and mature editor. I'm sorry for this message being a bit late, I only remembered you when I looked at ANI before, and thought "damn....". Anyway, thanks once again, maybe you could vote in my next one? that will hopefully succeed :)

Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already contacted you about admin coaching. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About that couple of pints...

Posting here to avoid sidetracking Physchim's talk page. I agree that you have been reasonable and I don't see any "witch hunting" in your actions (I do see it in some other people's, though). I also acknowledge that you considered the situation for months, and not only for two hours. I don't have the slightest doubt of your good faith. In fact, I only have two complaints: 1) that you only gave two hours for people to post objections before blocking. Had you been more patient, consensus would have been clearer, Physchim62 might have been more reluctant to revert, and a lot of trouble might have been avoided. 2) That Sadi Carnot had no clear and unambiguous warning. I think that all reduces to a philosophical difference of opinion; I think you preferred to take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach (you said something like "I'll unblock him if he asks"), while I would have preferred a "warn first, shoot later" approach. --Itub 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely fair. My preference would be to create a common statement Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Resolution signed by the parties where we explain that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding and ask for the case to be closed. I think everyone has learned valuable lessons and that things will proceed more smoothly in the future.

For my own actions, the rapid block was related to our unclear banning policy. It was my understanding at the time that I needed to place an indefinite block in order to see if any administrator would propose unblocking. I think the policy should be clarified to say that an indef block does not need to be placed in order to begin a discussion, and that an objecting administrator does not need to unblock in order to prevent a ban from taking effect. That simple change would be a great help. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, know that I am doing what I can to reduce the temperature of this conflict: [4] - Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this (and other discussions), I'm going to refrain from working on the SC evidence until further notice; I like the direction this is headed. It's the policy that needs fixin'. (I'm not sure my old SC evidence is that much a part of the big picture anyway; it's the point that the policy needs clarification that concerns me and I'm not convinced from the Jimbo RfC that there is clear understanding of how big the problem is on Wiki.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I think we are going to proceed cooperatively with the case because it's all set up, and everybody would like Arbcom to clarify different points. Please do add you evidence because this may reduce the amount of disagreement. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kattankudy Mosque Massacre

Hi Jehochman, I would also be interested in getting your opinion regarding including some of the gory mosque massacre photos [5] as well. I have moved the images in question to the talk page for discussion. Thanks, Sinhala freedom 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have one major personal weakness. I can't stand the sight of blood. Could you get somebody else to look at this? - Jehochman ^Talk 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete comment

Hi can you either complete or remove the half comment at the bottom of this? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Thanks for pointing that out. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help me

hi sir. I need your help for this

Gordafarid 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not so good with the manual of style. Usually I look at another article and copy the style already used. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block Island Chronology Dispute

Hey, I feel like constantly reverting this person is almost futile, but at the same time I know their edits are ridiculous. I am reverting their edits one more time, but I don't plan on touching it again. I am fairly new to editing articles on wikipedia, so what exactly should we do about this? HebrewHammerTime 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert. Talk to them and see if we can explain why prose is better than a list. Also, ask what facts are missing or incorrect, and then request references. Offer to repair the prose to make it better. If you cannot reach an agreement, we have other options, such as

WP:3O. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops- just saw this message not to revert after I already did. Well, that'll just be the last one then. I wish the person would get an account, it's difficult to talk to them except through the discussion page since they clearly have a dynamic IP (at least over time- last time this stuff came up it was slightly different) HebrewHammerTime 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that this user can be reasonable. I think you should be especially polite and encourage them to request specific changes to your version instead of them reverting you. Keep trying to compromise. If that fails, I can resolve the situation by other means. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI Nightmare..FYI

Hi Jonathan, I just left the same message for User:Durova. Just FYI.

I thought that

WP:COIN gets then slammed with all this and the end result are many upset editors and in too many cases ex-editors who just leave instead of coping with this BS. Cheers and happy reading.

--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

Handled. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking in to this--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi stranger. A belated congratulations on the adminship! I had a question, and you've always been a good judge of this sort of thing for me previously. I was looking at this content dispute here, and an interesting question came up. If x number of sources say that something is true, but no reliable sources exist to counter that statement, is it safe to state that the something is true? It's an interesting question. We can't (as I understand it) put up counter-views without sourcing, and even when

So, in short: if 10 reliable sources state a fact, but no reliable sources exist to counter that fact, can Example article state that "This is this."[1][2][etc.] until a valid counter-source arises? This is also assuming it is not a BLP of course. My question is specific to the Waterboarding article, after someone there raised this very question. I'm also very curious in general for understanding NPOV and verifiability's finer points, given that a handful of the articles I'm helping on now are borderline possible contentious territory. • Lawrence Cohen 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at our definition of

Fringe views are not included at all. Does that illuminate the situation? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Somewhat, yes. What if you get into a questionable gray area? If someone in a position of expertise, for example, stating that x is y, but others in equally valid and strong positions of expertise say x is not y, just quietly note the contention (sourcing both viewpoints, and the different point of views) and move on without taking a stand in tone pro or con either? • Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You don't have to be quite either. You can say plainly that there are opposing views. Explain the different views, citing

reliable sources. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks. I'll see if I can help sort out that mess there with this. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat also. I did it with Twinkle, not sure if that's the best way to do it. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question on my talk page. User_talk:Nick_Y.#Optional_question.--Nick Y. 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I hope you are well. Please note the activities and claimed identity of

A quick review of his edits certainly raises my suspicions. Perhaps a check user is in order?Kww 09:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request a checkuser, if you have sufficient evidence to do so, but I think you might also ask User:Carcharoth to investigate this matter and make a determination. Checkuser is not required for obvious cases of sockpuppetry. Carcharoth is familiar with the case, yet not an involved party. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read quite a lot of your discussions and learned some, now. I had a mixed feeling but finally I would say that your guys are doing quite well in keeping Wikipedia in a good shape and good science. By the way, about my contribution to "Gibbs paradox", I deleted the parts wrote by me. Sorry for creating so many versions for "Gibbs paradox" by adding and correcting every time I can log in. I am still new here. However, I did not delete the parts prepared by other people. --Linshukun 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with the solidity of the GRB article and its children. The material covers the observational facts well and includes the broad consensus on the modelling. Well sourced indeed. I will keep an eye out for this article. Let's hope it will achieve featured status :) Regards, 82.72.87.196 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need 2nd eye here, you said you'd help. I am convinced the new account is a sock of netmonger and should be blocked, including netmonger, what do you think? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sockpuppet. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were online, so I made my call. Thanks anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just stepped out for lunch, but will have a look now. I'll be in and out today.- Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, see the page. Our first of the peace effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My patience with you has run out. This edit is entirely inappropriate, as are many of your comments on the arbitration page. As such, I have requested to the Committee that you be banned for an interim period from editing Wikipedia, except for this page and for the pages of the arbitration. This does not affect my belief that you acted in good faith in blocking Sadi Carnot, however wrong I feel that that decision was. I simply believe that your judgement is such that you should not have the power to use administrative tools. It is your own actions which have lead me to this, dispite the fact the we have been able to co-operate on other dispute resolution. The matter is now in the hands of the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Nick Y. a question because I wanted to recommend that he look at our admin coaching program, but I had a concern he apparently used a previous identity. I wanted clarification before making that suggestion. P62, you need to assume good faith and ask me to explain things when you don't understand what's going on, instead of assuming the worst. You're obviously under a lot of stress, but if you just relax, you'll see that everything will turn out alright. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me from the Toto page from a month ago. On the page for the "Barenaked Ladies", there's one poster who won't stop using sources that are not reliable. He's using only 2 sources for the entire page and they are from 2 alleged tv specials even though there's no evidence that these tv specials actually aired. Please help, can you look over the page and talk to the poster TheHYPO. I've told him he needs more sources and better sources. He's just ignoring me, he has a bad attitude. You were such a great help last time with the Toto page, I trust you 100% with these situations.

Writer1400 Writer1400 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading out the door. Please take this to

editor assistance for quick action. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I certainly hope that your faith in Lin Shukun does not turn out to be misplaced.Kww 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, there is no harm done in being nice. You see how I was nice to Sadi Carnot twice before. Watch how the case resolves. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here. Is this acceptable ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a warning. Hopefully the editor will adjust. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks we are progressing towards total peace and quiet for a change in these articles. Thanks againTaprobanus —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I'm trying to clean up COI issues and establish notability for Road_&_Travel_Magazine. I left a note on the discussion page citing a source about 10 days ago, but I'm not sure how to proceed next, as there's been no response. Thanks very much for any tips. Erikd7 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a notice at

the conflict of interest noticeboard and ask for help. That should work. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you; I will do that. Erikd7 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Jehochman - I hope I can ask a favor of you. I came across this image today, and it seems to me to be a violation of copyright, or at least, a misrepresentation of who the owner of the copyright actually is. It's virtually the same as this well-established image, just with a bit of color and the Chinese characters edited out. I have to confess that I'm not very familiar with the procedures for questioning the copyright of an image, and my brief search for answers didn't yield much fruit. Would you mind having a look, and take whatever action you think necessary? And, if you'd be so kind, could you point me in the right direction of the proper procedures for this sort of thing, so I don't have to bug you in the future? Many thanks  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I did, and you can do the same: [6]

{{copyvio|http://www.nndb.com/people/974/000086716/cks-sm.jpg}}

Best regards, - Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding - I'll tuck that under my hat. Cheers  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to renumber the Proposed findings of Fact, because there are two number 14s. Could you protect the workshop page for a couple of minutes and do this before the problem gets any greater? Thanks in advance. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to run to a meeting. The clerks will take care of this, or you can do it yourself if you like. In spite of the robust debate, I would still like to be your friend, and am happy to settle this case by a mutual statement of principles if you like, and I am willing to strike any negative comments I've made if you would do the same. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: LOL! thanks for taking care of this. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 1RR 1st,2nd, 3rd and violation of

I'm only involved a little bit, and there seems to be a crowd already. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wiped mine and Durova's comments under "Phsychim62 refused to abide by the consensus". You wiped yours, too. I restored mine and Durova's, but if yours was an accident, you might want to put it back as well.Kww 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.- Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jehochman, how are you? I leave this message because of your "faith in the system", and because I have recently opened a

Hey Jehochman. First, I would like to thank you for your help with the Sri Lankan issues. Your work is much appreciated. Can you also comment on the following issue here please. Thanks Watchdogb 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching MindGuerilla. As you can probably tell, I don't have a lot of experience with sock-puppets, and what instilled my zero-tolerance attitude was good ol' SixString there. You didn't happen to catch the IP there, did you? Again, I appreciate you acting quickly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{ExampleRFCxxx|Talk: Wheel war}} DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

extra note - look at the signature, did you use 4 tildes or 5? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Jehochman,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Love 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

] Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Any chance you could reinstate the block regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf? The sock-puppet activity has resumed unabated. Thanks. Myasuda 23:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regretfully, I'm no longer confident in your judgment as a sysop. Both myself and Dmcdevit have repeatedly requested for your to provide us with a concrete grounds for the block (diffs of recent misconduct). Will you be willing to, as a last resort, do so? Or is a formal investigation by the arbitration committee the only recourse to compel you? Please let me know. Thanks in advance. El_C 07:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to talk with you about this. You can IM me right now. Send email for an invite. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I would prefer a public conversation. Is that possible? El_C 07:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What do you need to know? Let me ask one first. I agreed to the unblock which was what you wanted. Don't you feel like I should get some credit for being agreeable? - Jehochman ^Talk 07:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you should get credit for that. Nonetheless, do you really not see a problem with punitive blocks? Throughout the day, I have asked you to submit anything concrete, immediate, recent, abusive, etc. as grounds for the block, but I felt that instead, you have been markedly evasive. You continued to link to subpages, which may or may not contianed said evidence rather than straightforwardly produce the evidence itself. It was not, in fact, until Dmcdevit "sanity" exasperation that you ceased from this subpage linking and move to bring something more direct, which nonetheless was not up to par. Now with your desired measures against Dreamguy rejected in the clarification request, you still challenge that my account is factually incorrect? I am already shaken by how offensive your conduct has been thus far (unlike Dmcdevit, who only found it "a bit offensive," I found it rather outrageous)). I would think that you would wish to enjoy from the benefit of out experience, which I do not wish to flaunt, but we each have blocked thousands of users throughout the course of years without much incidence. El_C 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your earlier question, no, 24.19.33.82 is not me. If the signature at the end dosen't read "El C", then it is not me. El_C 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was possibly Greg Kohs. He and I play cat and mouse sometimes. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As a consultant with what looks to be money riding on your participation in this endeavor" — I would never say anything like that, I would never bring your personal or professional life into this. Give me some credit, please (!). El_C 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to enjoy the benefit of your experience, thank you. The presentation by Arcayne was quite a mess, you are right. As you can see, I didn't believe him at first, but eventually I saw that there was a case, which I corroborated through independent means, before making any claims. Your point that the incident was stale was a tenable objection, which is why I backed down rather than putting together a cleaner presentation. I am not challenging anything at this stage. I will strike the comment you find offensive if you like. After I agreed with you, I felt very upset that you were admonishing me. Would you be willing to strike that? I am sorry we had this misunderstanding, but I feel that we can sort it out. If you have any other questions, please ask. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am glad my admonishment impacted you, and I don't say that because I enjoy admonishing, certainly not upsetting people, but because I feel such an admonishment was sound in this case, and it was not only directed toward yourself, as the only fair outcome that doesn't leave deeper scars. I am willing to look into the possibility of there being something/s factually incorrect in my own review, but you need to be clear about what these are. Simply viewing your backing down as a gesture of goodwill, is not good enough, because what indication is there that you and the other individuals I admonished would not repeat the same mistakes later on in the not too distant future. And, an admonishment from myself is certainly a much lighter burden to carry than one from the Arbitration Committee. El_C 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I think the evidence is there, although it takes some digging and sorting to see it. The objection that the behavior was too old to be actionable is something I have now learned. The idea that the evidence needs to be presented as clearly as possible is something I also agree with. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Regards, El_C 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) While it might not be my place to contribute to the discussion here, I apologize if my handling as a first-timer made matters difficult for either of you. I don't hate anyone, and this wasn't a wtichhunt, at least, not for me. it was just my first time preparing trying to create a reply, and I wasn't anywhere near succinct (I was also concerned that too much brevity might be perceived as glibness). i have endeavored to be more so as I learn more about how this works. My apologies if any ineptitude on my part complicated the relationship between you two. That would indeed upset me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry over it. Lessons have been learned all around. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, received your note on my talk page, but not sure to which article you're referring. The only recent edits I've made for living persons are here, here, and here - all of which were simple typo corrections or removal of vandalism. In the future please include a reference to the article in question - otherwise it's difficult to learn from my mistakes. Thank you - Chewyrunt 15:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okee dokey, I removed the message because it looked like I may have left that on the wrong page. Sorry. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for the quick response Chewyrunt 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else got it, which is ok under these circumstances, but thank you for asking me first! -- But|seriously|folks  18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's always a good idea to keep people in the loop. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I've responded to your question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf. Thanks for asking! Myasuda 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...For your help. Can you on my userpage explain my history please? KingPuppy 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

dear Jenochman, as an Admin,would be kind to have a look at the photo i posted of Alfred Rosenberg at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosenberg.jpg??i actually spent good time on this with the help of a friend of mine who's a lawyer.thank you much sir :)Grandia01 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am not sure about the copyright status on that. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you please tell me why??please let me know if there is anything to correct.i just highly doubt that anyone can claim credit to it and thus make it illegal to be hereGrandia01 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the Dbachmann thread you closed. You said "ANI is for complaints, not investigations", but at the top of the page it says "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department"... :-) I also noticed that you said "Participants are counseled to prepare a detailed report to support their complaints." That's Arbcom arbitrator/clerk language! :-) Carcharoth 11:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. :-D - Jehochman ^Talk 12:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award
		For your merits in bringing about the Sri Lanka dispute resolution, the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation herewith presents you this Sri Lanka specific award, which is the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks. — Sebastian 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Please let me know whenever you need help. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me bringing our conversation that was happening on AN/I here - I think it's probably a more suited venue for now (feel free to cross post, or move back, or move to my talk at your discretion).

I think your idea of a central repository of community resolutions could be very powerful and useful - and perhaps not just in the area of editor's restrictions (which is indeed a sensible application). What would you think about somehow structuring content or policy discussions into it in some way? - You may have become aware that

Regardless, it's nice to meet you, best - Privatemusings 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you. I am very interested in community restrictions that are less than blocks or bans. For instance, if an editor has a problem with civility, instead of blocking, we may be able to agree to civility patrol as a lesser alternative. That should be recorded on a list so that if future problems occur, the prior agreement can be found. Searching the ANI archives for stuff isn't practical.

Can I give you a bit of unsolicited advice? You would probably catch less criticism if you spend a but more time in article space. Have you ever created a

Featured article? Your interest in policy areas is fine, but to be most effective you should try to balance your participation with mainspace contributions. I hope this helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Although I'm prone to being one of nature's cynics when it comes to badges like 'GA' and 'FA', I would indeed like to get an article up to meet that standard. Do you know anything about Socrates? It's a very important article, which I've been working a little on both off and on line (when not indef. blocked.) - I'll look for your proposal on the Village Pump, because i think it has merit. best, Privatemusings 06:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was edit-conflicted with the archiving of the AN/I thread, so I just thought I'd post what I'd written here, since it responded mainly to you: That's a very good point; I've spent a lot of time recently looking for exactly why, where and what non-ArbCom restrictions have been placed on various editors. I urge you to propose something at the Village Pump.

Of course, I should point out that I having read the above discussion in its entirety and at one go, I can't see it being "supported by the consensus", but that is rendered moot by PM's suggestion.)"

Cheers! Relata refero 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your skill with chipmunks is unparalleled (yes, I know that isn't you, but for the sake of this compliment we will pretend it is). :) Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken Latitude group to deletion review here, if successful I would like to have the content from Latitude White (which you speedy deleted) restored so that it could be merged into the main article. [[Guest9999 12:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren ^(talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, in regards to 24.19.33.82 (talk · contribs), could you offer some input on what BLP violations you were alleging against that IP with this warning? This is in regards to the current ArbCom case. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now consider this matter to be closed because there was a mediated settlement. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there was no BLP vio? I'm only asking because I plan to raise the issue of this IP's block (and all the problems that followed) at arbitration. Bishonen says her block (and protection of the user's talk page, and all the drama and problems that ensued) were at your request. I'm honestly hoping for a simple explanantion to clear this up so it doesn't have to be raised at arbitration. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a mediated settlement. You can ask User:WJBscribe to explain if you like. I am sorry, that's all I have to say about this. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't bug you any more about it. But I'm afraid it's going to be rehashed at arbitration. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been blocked. This discussion is moot. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman; with regards to the speedy deletion of this article, I'm not sure how a job title classifies as a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content (or blatant advertising, as was previously tagged). I removed any references to specific hospitals. There seems to be enough material on the subject, even if it eventually turns out to be unnotable, but that's a different matter. Marasmusine (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way it was written, and the totally irrelevant Google results I saw for the term seemed to support the tagging rationale, but if you would like to restore it, be my guest. Perhaps a better title would help. Happy editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I noticed you had just deleted the Birendra Shah from CSD. It seems reasonable, since the article said virtually nothing. However, I think the subject is fairly notable, and was just about to remove the speedy and add a sentence or two describing the subject. Would you mind terribly if I recreated it and added some notes about the notability (briefly, Shah was killed by Maoists in Nepal a week or two ago, seemingly related to his journalism [7]). Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When creating a new page, be sure to assert notability before you save it. That will avoid problems like this. I have recreated it for you and added the hangon tag. Please leave a note on the talk page soon, or it may be re-deleted again by somebody else. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would have recreated it myself but I didn't want to step on your toes (I was running through

CAT:CSD when I saw it). I replied to your note on the article talk page. Certainly, given what was on the page, your deletion was well justified. It just happened I googled the name as well and found "the rest of the story" as they say. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am concerned that you seem to have taken on a course of actions outside of consensus and and the processes of Wikipedia. You appear to have arbitrarily decided that certain contributors are problematic and are executing blocks without prior discussion or warning the "offender". I shall be reviewing the case of User:Academy Leader to see if any Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines have been violated [refactored]. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)(edited by LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Less, I suggest you review the case first, before you jump to conclusions and leave ill considered "warnings". I suggest you take your concerns to the thread I started at

WP:ANI for the purpose of discussion this matter. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

For the record, the block has received strong support from uninvolved administrators. Not only is the "warning" premature, it is also factually incorrect. [8] [refactored] Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (modified 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am responding in regard to your message on my talkpage; I regret that I feel I am unable to refactor my warning at this stage for the reasons requested. I would comment that you are requesting the sort of prior discussion that is absent from your actions which gave rise to my issuing a warning. Either process is followed or it isn't.

Please note that my concerns are not with the use of the alternative accounts but with your actions. I did indeed check whether Academy Leader was issued with a warning, or if there were any prior discussions noted that would have indicated that your actions had consensus. The support from other admins for the reasons (and I would query that they are uninvolved as far as interpretation of what constitutes disruptive editing and the use of alternative accounts) is therefore irrelevant.

Notwithstanding the above I am going to refactor my warning, as I am unable to argue the case of the requirement of correct process if I am not going to follow it myself. I am perturbed by your insinuation that my good faith actions were meant to intimidate, and your request that I not cause further "disruption" on your talkpage by presumably responding as I now have. I shall be conducting all further discourse at the other forums, unless you initiate further discussion here or at my talkpage (which of course you are welcome to do). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dainsyng.gif Less, I've always liked you. You are welcome to post here. I've adjusted my remarks, and no, I don't think you were acting on bad faith at all. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I read correctly, you are now indicating that my voluntary withdrawal from that dispute is now enforceable as a defacto topic ban, and that DS just needs to link to this unresolved AN/I entry to report a "problem" with me? I never had a COI on Ted Frank's articles, my edit history on those pages is absolutely clean, and the editor on the other side of the dispute has been warned by 4 admins and an arbitrator to stay away. Yet I am the one who is to be watched? How does that happen? I tried to resolve the dispute civilly on that article's talk page, and he turned it into a war, then escalated to AN/I - and even as I am the one voluntarily backing off to avoid a monster drama, you tell David that my concession is enforceable?

Please tell me what I should have done differently, because honestly, I'm at a loss. It seems the only alternative I had was to ignore it, and let an editor add negative material to multiple articles related to the person with whom he had just had a very heated conflict. And doing it even though 5 respected users asked him not to.

I'm done with it, you can be sure of that, but please tell me what I should have done so I can avoid these "problems" in the future. ATren (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just read your response on AN/I. Your original wording seemed to be making a judgement, which was a concern to me because I honestly don't know what I did wrong. Thank you for clarifying. :-) ATren (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me why you suspect I am a troll? You did not make that statement on the previous thread, yet you seem to have made a judgement, which is unfair since I have no idea why. Please tell me why, so that I may defend myself. And, FWIW, I did not report Calton. ATren (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored my comment before you posted here. I don't know if you are a troll or not, but there certainly was a case made by somebody who thinks so. In any case, I used softer language. What do you think about Calton? I don't like blocks placed without evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He misunderstood me. I think he saw the AN/I thread and reverted me - but he reverted to a version that had the quote misattributed to the wrong person. When I corrected him (it was purely a factual error), he thought I was being argumentative. My attempts to resolve it did not sway him. I thought it was uncivil, but I just deleted the thread and moved on. Is it block-worthy? I don't know, that's not for me to decide - this is my first interaction with this editor; others know him better.

BTW, your comment still says "consider the source", but I didn't report this, so I'm not the source. Also, if you do have concerns about my behavior, I'd appreciate a dialog so I can defend myself. It's clear you have doubts about my intentions. ATren (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jehochman. :-) ATren (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jehochman. Just noticed that the article

Hey, Jehochman - are you going to fix this? Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have blanked some other posts, and I thought it was impersonation because a comment from Durova appeared at the top, and I missed the matching comment lower down in the left column. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that - thanks for the reply. An apology for the bad block would probably be a nice thing to do, though. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit policy pages of disputes that you might be seen to be involved in. I do not want to block you, but I shall have to if such actions continue. This is your final warning. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note your warning. I'm not clear what this is about. I wouldn't have thought this was a problem since everybody on the discussion was in agreement. Can we discuss this or ask somebody to help us sort it out? - Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I've noticed you on AN/I and other boards and articles which I frequent, and I just want to compliment you on your stellar work as an admin, no matter what other people might say. You've got a heart of gold and the best of intentions (not the "road to hell paved" kind, either), and I just want to thank you for making Wikipedia a better place, despite all the nationalists, POV-pushers, trolls, vandals and griefers. Well done. :)

Thank you. That means a lot to me. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you posted something in response to the subpages section on WT:AN that caught my eye. Would it be possible to make a template of the form {{friv|waaaaaahmbulance}} that would automatically place that "frivolous, try DR instead" box around the text of "waaaahmbulance"? I suck at templates, so I was wondering if you knew how.

You can make copies of these: {{

coib}} (bottom). One goes at the top of the post, and the other goes at the bottom. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If the requester is looking for a general method of boxing up comments, then {{

WP:DRV there is nothing about DRV in the message; you write your own message. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, but I don't want to have to do two templates. I want it to be a piped template, so I can simply put the text of whatever I'm going to say after the pip. {{frivolous | like this}} or {{frivolous | 1= like this}}.

^{Son of the Defender} 09:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The two template solution works best because it won't choke if there's a link or a diff in the text that you want to collapse. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thanks for refactoring this page- it was getting a pain to locate items. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. There were mixed reviews, and the debate is still going strong. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the Durova victims, first a sock of one, then a sock of another. No proof, no anything, just her own selfish motivation, more than likley stemming from some off balance sheet need to prove her own worth to the world. In need of help, she is. Songgarden in Deutschland, nicht vahr? 84.133.230.102 (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So prove her wrong. Don't be disruptive or act badly. If you are not banned, you can start a new account and do good work. If you are banned, go to another Wikiproject (e.g. WikiNews) and do good work for a while, and then apply for reinstatement here. Best of luck. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't she also open to recall? If people are having problems with her, then she has made herself open to be reviewed by the community (something which more admins should do), and they should do it that way instead of posting accusations along talk pages. I don't have an opinion either way, I don't know Durova, but she is certainly prolific around here.

pray 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I suspect that a lot of people have been ignoring the !! debate because it is about a mistaken block that was reversed about an hour later. Folks would have been better served by sending a quiet email to Durova saying, "This was a mistake because... and please fix it." I imagine that a recall would fail because Durova has helped so many people over the years, and they will all come out to support her. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman, you and others have stated that perhaps a statement from the Arbitration Committee on this matter would help provide some resolution to this. Perhaps someone should open a request at
  talk) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  • (I do not wish to be a party to the Arbitration because it really does not concern me, but perhaps someone should open the request?)
    talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]

• Indeed. Either Durova can file herself, or !!, or one of the people who requested recall can do so. People need to go to
  ad nauseum. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I agree. But I don't want to comment on that active page, which at this point seems to be a pointless exercise in verbal abuse. I am actually surprised
  talk) 12:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Jehochman, please strikethrough your comment at Giano's talk page. I appreciate your loyalty, but I think it'd be better if you withdrew it. Durova^Charge! 23:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish. This dispute hardly needs more flames. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, I believe that you will find my (long) article at SEJ from today interesting. It is titled: Wikipedia Article Quality Assessment and Ranking Tips for Users and Search Engine Engineers. Check it out and add a comment if you see something missing or if you have additional recommendations that would be helpful for either users of Wikipedia and/or search engine engineers from Google and other search engines. :). Thanks and Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am a new user on Wikipedia with extensive experience in SEO, in addition to other fields.

I was looking over the Search engine optimization consultants and while it is good I belive it needs to be updated with new faces out there.

Some of the people I like others I hate, but they are the new breed of SEOs that SEO community respects and follows.

I recommend to nominate

Rand Fishkin www.seomoz.org

Vannesa Fox www.vanesafoxnude.com

David Naylor www.davidnaylor.co.uk

Andy Beard Andybeard.eu

Sebastian sebastians-pamphlets.com

Michael Gray www.wolf-howl.com

These are the most prominent and active SEOs in the industry. I believe each one of them deserves a page in WikiPedia. Igor Berger (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts:

Rand Fishkin - Had a page, but he requested deletion.

www.seomoz.org

Vanessa Fox - Has a page, I created it.

www.vanesafoxnude.com

David Naylor (technologist) - Most likely notable. Please start a page.

www.davidnaylor.co.uk

Andy Beard - Most likely notable. Please start a page

Andybeard.eu

Sebastian - Who? Show me references. Maybe I am dense.

sebastians-pamphlets.com

Michael Gray (technologist) - Possibly notable. Make sure it is referenced.

www.wolf-howl.com

I recommend working one at a time, and including at least three references from reliable, independent sources (See

WP:V). If you create five stubs at once, they all may get deleted. It is better to create a start class article if you can. Provide more details and reliable sources to show that the topic is notable. See Jill Whalen

as an example.

You may want to create pages in your userspace, and then move them into mainspace. User:Igorberger/David Naylor. You can click that link to get started.

Here's a useful tool. http://www.jehochman.com/wpcite/ This is a Firefox add-on that will automatically create inline reference code for whatever web page that you are looking at. When you find a news story about one of these subjects, use that tool to create reference code. At the bottom of the article, create a references section, and use {{reflist}} to automatically generate the list of references.

Good luck, and ask me for help any time you need it. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advise, and it will be very interesting to do it objectivly. But it will require a lot of work, so I hope I can adopt a user to help me with this.

As far as Sebastian is, who is he? He is very popular and has a very strong voice in the SEO community. He has many many followers who respect him and listen to him. But who is he? He knows his stuff inside out and rely very good. He has connections to Google, and Googlers listen to him. But who is he? Igor Berger (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman ^TalkI have added some new changes on Vanessa page, and also nominated Google Webmaster Central for a page, because it is very important for Google in alerting Webmasters of changes at Google. Before you cut and slash, talk with me here, or in email. If my grammar, structure, or syntax, is wrong please correct it. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started building a page for Adam Lasnik but it was speedy deleted, I should have consulted you first, I am sory.

Can we build a page for Adam Lasnik or is there a request to WikiPedia, by him not to have pege?

I was just instructed to have a finished version built in a sandbox before bringing it public. How do I bring it public, do I just move it?

Also before building any pages, I like to have a senior editor nomination for the page, as to not waste time, playing in the sandbox. Igor Berger (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so what will be your opnion on making Adam Lasnik page? Or shuold I post the question to the community?

Sabastian being congratulated by Google at [Google Webmaster Central Blog] for his help at Google Webmaster Help Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian claims to be an IT consultant in his Google Webmaster Help Group profile for smart-it-consulting.com Sebastian GWHG profile About Smart IT Consulting Services is a brand of Virtual Brains Inc., no imformation on VB Inc. ?

Looks like we dealing with primary SEOs that are on consultant page already, secondary professional SEO's that are

The tertiary SEOs use Gorila WarFare as their SEO practices techniques.

Now that the SEO has being diasected and brought out in the open, I will procede slowly with the pages that we nominated first.

Thank you,fyi, Igor Berger (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I set up the pages and gathering relative information.

• User:Igorberger/David Naylor
• User:Igorberger/Andy Beard
• User:Igorberger/Michael Gray
• I moved Vanessa Fox to Famous SEOs section form Google.

If you can give me some feedback about the process, I would greatly appreciate it. Igor Berger (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jehochman, this is actually

Could you look at the page and see what you think? I know last time I had a problem with him(a different problem) you refered me to someone else but I really think it would be best if you handled this. You did an excellent job and I know everything will turn out good if you handle it. Thanks alot. Cd50 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple bits of advice. First, I recommend that you use one account. Multiple accounts are sometimes allowed, and in this case it seems valid, but if you have a confidential issue, you can also use email to contact an admin. I recommend you bring this report to

Editor assistance reports. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Replied. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to what extent it is pertinent to have you named as a party; still reading through. Regards, El_C 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a new admin, I am looking for teachers. Physchim62 has offered, and I accepted. He's quite good at certain issues. If you would be willing to coach me also on some of the areas where he is less experienced, I would enjoy that. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really do 'coaching' per se., but am always available for advise, so by all means, feel free. El_C 16:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 'coaching' is pretty hands off as well, but I don't believe in sterile criticism (I have had plenty of criticism for Jonothan since he became an admin). I hope that other experienced users will also reply to any questions that he has. Physchim62 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just wanted to introduce myself as a newbee to Wikipedia. I recently added some things to the Mythology page, but user DreamGuy keeps removing then without explaining why. He must have done a lot of work on that page and maybe sometimes thinks he owns it? I also noticed that he has been "blocked" before for certain violations. I hope that you can help me find my way around here if necessary. I also hope that you had a good Thanksgiving!

Regards,

- Fkapnist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkapnist (talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you address this problem to

Editor assistance reports. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Herman Tumurcuoglu Somebody just droped this link http://www.searchengines-optimization.com

I checked the site, and it does not look like a Notable SEO site, also Googled Herman Tumurcuoglu, but found no SEO relevency, accept some SE Spam pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&curid=187946&diff=173597417&oldid=173593666

Plese advise. Igor Berger (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was cleaned up by Sfacets, if you want delete this comment! Igor Berger (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in my opinion. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. There seems to be a lot of activity, so I'll probably just observe unless somebody asks for my help. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lawrence, I've seen you around the Durova controversy and am wondering how you are doing? We haven't spoken lately. I hope you are doing well. I've been working on

Good, on this end. I saw that situation from ANI and your talk page. Its a bit of a mess and I hope you make it out alright, from that. No offense, but from reading that backlog of history it looks like you may have been a little too quick on the draw on a couple of things, but thats it. Doing well enough, otherwise, on my end. I think I need to remove a bunch of the Wikipedia space pages from my watchlist so that I can get back to writing more instead of following all these threads that seem to move in every direction. How goes it with you, the current mess aside? Just saw your updated edit. If you need help on it with digging up sources let me know? I've been wanting to get more into this articles--following that side of science is an old hobby. • Lawrence Cohen 00:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing all right, all things considered. Yes, I am trying to slow down a bit. If you would like to team up on some astronomy articles, I'd like that. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, on working together on some. Let me know which you needed help on. • Lawrence Cohen 06:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever get a chance or time, would you mind giving a few once-over copy-editing or reference formatting passes to

Sure. I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think theres easily enough material there for a Featured Article, and probably at least one more fork off from the current volume of information. Something like Blackwater Worldwide Operations, maybe. Once the current Congressional investigation goes off, probably more yet. It's a bit of a mess, subject matter wise, but there hasn't been much political drama on the editing at all. Very collegial, and civil. Except for one user, but he's long gone (unfortunately, he made very good points on content, but in the worst possible way, and got community banned). • Lawrence Cohen 06:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thread initially from User talk:CygnetSaIad

I've mentioned you here. Feel free to comment, or not, as you see fit. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Some discourse occurs on on User_talk:Bishonen.)

Hi, no checkuser was actually performed. I spoke with two of them about your account because there was a little confusion between

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For some reason the block log on one of those, CygnetSalad, comes up as indefinitely blocked. For a moment I thought you might be evading a block, but further investigation revealed that not to be the case. For the future, you might want to get whichever of those is still blocked to be unblocked so that nobody else suffers the confusion that I did. If you like, I could even take care of that for you. Is there any reason the 'L' version is still blocked? Should it stay blocked? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for bringing that discussion to my attention. I'm not sure how there was any confusion when:

• The header at the top of my talk page spells out the link between these accounts explicitly,
• That checking the block log of this account would have made it clear that that indef was lifted,
• Checking my talk archives (or Google) for some facts would not have gone astray either.

Really, there should have been no ambiguity, no reason to say "for some reason..." Nicely nicely, I'm saying that going to check-user before having done the most basic base-line research demonstrates the same underlying assumption of bad faith that has led to the recent kerfuffle. The "further investigation" needs to be done first not last anytime you're thinking of bringing power to bear. Can I please have the names of the check-users that you spoke to?

CygnetSaIad (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not sure I follow your line of questioning, but let me add that no checkuser was performed. I occasionally consult with more senior editors for advice. Your privacy has not been affected in any way, and I am no longer involving myself in this matter. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey... Maybe I'll start over, with less kvetching and more just talking?

I'm just concerned that "we" are collectivly getting a bit paranoid. Everything above makes it look like I was, at least for a while, tarred with the same brush as some other less-fortunate editors as a "bad hand" or something like that. (Really, if I were concerned about my privacy I'd have made more effort to seperate this account from my "real" one.) So, while consulting with senior editors is all well and good, in this case it could be read as indicative of sloppy thinking. I would like to know who the check-users you contacted were, so that I may discuss with them their current understanding of the check-user policy. I can't imagine any reason not to tell me who you asked. Is there one?

CygnetSaIad (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, let's chat. I've been thinking about these issues quite a lot lately and have come to hold a different view than before. Let me assure you that the checkusers are extremely careful and they operate under close supervision. Since my contacts were done through off-wiki channels, I will keep that private. I agree with you that we are getting paranoid. I've just made a policy proposal that may interest you. Have a look here and please add your thoughts. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, we may have a problem that Akismet flagging WikiPedia links in blog posts as Spam.

I had it happen to me 2 times already. Once with SEJ Loren and once with VFN Vanessa. I documented both cases with SnapShoot. Actually after running a test on SEJ, Loren took down Akismet and installed captcha.

I think the root of the problem maybe this.

Spam ocurences picked up by Projecthoneypot.org 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest 1,392 times 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape 1,392 times

http://www.projecthoneypot.org/comment_spammer_urls.php

This is a big problem for WikiPedia if Internet usrs cannot quote us, because of Akismet Spam filter. I am sure you know, Akismet filter has been causing problems for a long time with false positives.

If you need to see evidence that I have accumulated please let me know. So, please investigate this matter. Thnak you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your msg. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Tagging_empty_categories, and sorry for not replying more quickly.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Jehochman, this post is so funny it will make you fall out of your seat...

Do we have a cetogory to nominate a best SEO post? Actually, I would say it is the best blog post in all categories. I hope we have some place to put this, this lady is very smart. Chimps are Smarter tan SEO's Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, these guys are all notable, even Rebecca from SeoMoz is with them. Seo-Chicks[reply]

I nominate to do an article seo-chicks.com Igor Berger (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of energy in the SEO community. Andy Beard take on eclussion and PR the best analysis on the matter that I have seen to date. Igor Berger (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, Jehochman. The message I have just posted on the

I have. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I actually only meant to ask you if Durova's Sock School was still active, not anything intrusive about your own possible awareness of the infamous report—I would assume that if you wanted to say something about that, you already would have. But you told me all I needed to know and more. More to the point, your post completed my argument about what Mackensen had asked Giano about, with, I thought, considerable urgency.[9] [10] [11] [12] Mackensen had apparently lost interest by the time I replied to him, though, so it was all a bit of a waste of time. Sorry about that. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the standard triple crown you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See

Thank you. That's beautiful. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be a good name for it? I don't know if I'm up to a first draft, myself. Your flexible ideas like Mackensen said could be just what is needed so no one can come down heavy handed on fair reposting of correspondance. And to clear up offsite linking, etc. • Lawrence Cohen 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, refusing to justify actions transparently IS the issue. That is PRECISELY the issue (at least, insofar as privacy and/or copyright is used as a smokescreen) that I was trying to address in that paragraph - why not reword it instead of deleting?—Random832 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Just left a message to that effect on the talk page. Give it another go. This is

WP:BRD in action. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've just been collating citation tools links together (see [13] and [14]), and I notice that the link on your user page and the link given here (Diff) are different. Furthermore, md5sum says the XPIs on each page are actually different. Would you mind clarifying which one is the latest version/official version so I choose the correct/best link? Thanks! 124.148.105.71 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the one on my userpage. I need to update the other one - Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Link fixed. 124.148.105.71 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that an image that you uploaded from the NSF was recently nominated at FPC. I read their Copyright and Reuse of Graphics and Text policy and they grant permission for use on a case by case basis. Did you contact them for permission or have any other information regarding use of NSF graphics on Wikipedia? Please add this info to the image discription page if you do. If not, then let me know and I'll contact them and request permission. Thanks, Cacophony 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded over there. Thanks for notifying me. I don't usually watch those pages. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova (talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'e placed a request

Further to the discussion there, concerning indefinite blocks, I was reminded of this block log. An indefinite block ended up at arbitration and ended up as a ban for one year. This reinforces my feeling that certain parts of the community of admins are moving too quickly to apply indefinite blocks in cases where ArbCom would only apply a long ban. Before applying an indefinite block, the question should be asked: "What sanctions would ArbCom apply in this case?" The problem really is that many admins pull "indefinite block" out of the hat because they are used to blocking vandals indefinitely and then walking away and forgetting about it. In complex cases, involving non-vandal editors, a long community ban might be more appropriate than an indefinite block. I agree with you that this all needs to be discussed further at

WT:BLOCK. I think the first step might be reviewing what you added (the quote at WP:RFARB). Shall I start the discussion there, or do you want to? I'll probably end up cutting and pasting what I wrote at the request for arbitration. Carcharoth 22:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest letting somebody else make the first move to overhaul that policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I suspect the arbitration case will result in a need for such an overhaul by the community anyway. Waiting another month or so won't break the bank. I'm also sympathetic to your point that you were only commenting from the sidelines as a non-admin at the time, I hope the arbitrators will take that into account. About the policy, I wouldn't overhaul the policy itself - I was merely suggesting starting discussion on the talk page. I'm well aware that some people take a far stricter view on how quickly one should escalate to indefinite blocking. Carcharoth 11:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted you to know that, as I say in ANI, I already told Physchim62 here about the ANI. I wouldn't open a debate about his supposed misuse without informing him first! However, it seems until now he has made some contributions but no answer... let's wait...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I have adjusted my comment to PS62 accordingly.^[15] - Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information I notified Physchim immediately after posting to ANI and before notifing Hesperian Gnangarra 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your post in my archive. A number of other posts followed yours in rapid succession, and I failed to respond to you before the thread was archived, due to other events taking up my attention. I am going to investigate this, and will let you have an answer shortly. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now confirmed via checkuser that this IP and the Big5Hunter account are both sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user Polygamist4x. No further action is required. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, if I may, can you tell me if the deleted article on John Indian only contains the line shown in the deletion log, 'John Indian was the husband of Tituba' or if it contains more, and if it contains more do you mind userifying it for me? Dureo 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

forgive me I clicked a wrong link somewhere and coulda sworn the admint hat deleted it was retired, but he appears to not be so I will ask him, thanks. ;P Dureo 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Admin discretion - a response to part of your evidence in that case. Carcharoth 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note, since you seem most visibly concerned by Charles' edits. A couple days ago,

GRBerry 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for that. There's a note on the Arbcom clerks board that Charles is taking a break. If you think I should withdraw any of my remarks, please let me know. I don't plan to say anything else about the matter for now. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jehochman, thanks for your comments. Only problem is most socks seem to be operating, I'd need to warn them all. I've asked User:Alison to have a look, she's a Checkuser, so I'll see what she has to say. The list is becoming quite substantial!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I spoke on a panel about Social Media yesterday hosted by the

Thanks for the tip. I've sent him an email. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the editwarring was uncalled for, I don't think you should protect usertalk of a user who has been inactive for 3 days. Suva Чего? 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hopeful that the user will become active again. Should he request unprotection of the page, I will immediately do so. In fact, I am sending him an email at this very moment to ask for his input. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, thanks for alerting me to this. I have no problem with reblocking Kelpin for 1 second to note that the initial block was a mistake, but I won't be able to get to it until later today. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to Akhilleus's attention (though just for the record I'm male not female!). Kelpin (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it turns out there are a few sleeper accounts that turned up in the checkuser:

• Darren Gregory (
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Nina Eve Slabber (
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Lindi James (
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Hippies Little Brother (
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

Can you block those? The request for ECW500 was stale, so it is unclear as to whether JB196 or ECW500 is behind this. But I'm willing to assume that the sockpuppeteer is User:ECW500 based on the (not so creative) usernames of his sockpuppets. This fellow's IP address' have been blocked as well:

• 137.158.190.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.245.164.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And as I suspected all along, but added in as a clear party involved,

I am glad. He seemed like a good user who got mixed up. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this just now. I'd like to point out that no way are these latest socks related to JB196. I'm more than familiar with the latter's sockery, having reverted and blocked hundreds of them (literally) in the past so no, not JB196. Just FYI - Alison ^❤ 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe your latest protection of Ghirlas user page may be influenced by a bias. Could you please(I'm being polite here, see!)explain yourself. Otherwise I am inclined to suspect that your are abusing your admin privileges to help a friend make a point, ie making it clear that I have no right to wish happy days to Ghirla where ever he is... --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit war involving multiple parties. The target was a user talk page belonging to an inactive user. Therefore, protection was the least harmful and most appropriate way to stop the edit war. In the future, discuss your differences rather than edit warring. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer:) I like it. I had no intention do do any more reverts btw. The whole thing had become very silly. But, could you please explain to me, HOW does one convince another person to allow you to post a well wishing message to another users user page? Or can one just go and remove messages from inactive users and its fine?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, because an opponent of this inactive user responds to a positive message of encouragement with something negative, you are going to prevent other positive comments on the inactive user's talk page? Because this negative comment is being reverted by folks who clearly do not view said user in a positive light (to use an understatement)? You are giving their side equal legitimacy as the positive comments when you protect. But how does that (the negativity) help the project? El_C 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you talk to Bishonen (talk · contribs) and Irpen (talk · contribs) you may be able to resolve your differences. I hope so. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, and add that perhaps you should talk to them by email rather than on-wiki. I know nothing of the situation, but I find it hard to see how the dispute between yourself an the other two editors could be better resolved on-wiki than off. This seems to be a private matter, in every sense of the term. Physchim62 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAh, but when I try to take it off wiki, ie IRC I may be accused of trying to hide something or wikilawyering or worse... Been there, done that. Besides, Its done. I tried to be nice and truthful. And all that resulted was a tempest in a teacup. Really. Removing others comments should not be OK. But alas, thus is life. May sun shine on to the lives of you all.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind and generous comment :) Physchim62 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is inactive, Alexia Death, you do not get to write something demoralizing in the wiki-sense yet somehow excuse that with real-life well-wishes and a couple of emoticons. I have removed the protection. Do not continue to add that "I cant say I will join in on the I wait you back thing. It has been quiet [sic.] past few months," or you will be blocked from editing without further warning. El_C 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make clear the rules. If you are a content opponent of an inactive users whom others are attempting to persuade to return, you are not permitted to write, or revert, negative comments. In fact, you should limit interactions with said users to concrete content issues only. El_C 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a link to these rules is...? Or is it yet another Durova-style-ruleset? -- Sander Säde 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link to these rules? Are you kidding me? Do not wikilawyer around common sense. El_C 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is little left to add to what El_C have said, just a note on protection. Only worst trolls get their talk pages protected. This happens when they use it for hate speech after being blocked and for no other reason. This harassment has to be dealt with by dealing directly with the problematic users while protecting the page is the wrong solution. Also, if you bothered to check, Ghirla is not exactly inactive. He shows up once in a while making a small edit or two. So, a two-week protection was very much uncalled for. --Irpen 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my comment that may seem overly harsh to Jehochman. I am not to say that Jehochman did anything improper. He tried to stop harassment too, just in a different way. Obviously taking a stand against talk page harassment is a right thing to do. --Irpen 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I wrote an email to Ghirlandajo and told him about the incident, and offered to remove protection immediately if he requested. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, El C, for helping me resolve this matter. I was not aware of the prior history of these users. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. And thank you, I appreciate you backing me up on this. El_C 04:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Favicons does not point out that IE is particularly poor at showing favicons. I added a link that comments on this. The link was removed by SEWilco as being spam. He seems to have a somewhat checkered history. I don't have the time or the motivation to get into some kind of debate on this. Is there a way of editing the page to reflect IE's weakness on this without getting into a fling-flang session?

Thanks for anything you can do on this. (Bwelford (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Bwelford, as an expert in on the subject, this must be frustrating for you. Can you possibly publish that information on a site that has more editorial oversight, such as Search Engine Watch or Search Engine Land, and then drop me a link. I will be happy to consider it for the article. Citing to blogs and fora is dicey at best. If you have a look at the

verifiability policy you'll see what I mean. Happy editing, - Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Jehochman, thanks. I can see where Wikipedia is coming from. The topic was covered by me over a year ago. The post itself receives good traffic and is highly visible in Google for this subject. I'll leave it there. (Bwelford (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A few days ago you left welcome spam on the contributions page of User:Businessplan. Now the same article spam is reappearing, this time via IP 216.93.194.239. Four of the edits are timestamped after the welcome spam. These edits re-add the removed spam.

In addition to re-adding the spam to

I'm not sure of the proper way to handle this. Many thanks, Egfrank (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert the spam and warn th IP on its talk page. If it happens again, we can file a request for checkuser to determine if this is purposeful evasion. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Egfrank (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. We can sort this out. Trivially. El_C strikes out the highly offensive accusations, and I'll be on my merry way. An apology would normally also be indicated, but I neither demand that nor expect it.

I appreciate your trying to help out here, Jehochman, but El_C has stepped far out of line. Especially in the current climate, making accusations of collusion (implicitely off-wiki collusion, since it can be trivially observed I have basically never had any on-wiki interaction whatsoever with David) is something that just shouldn't be done. It's an attack on my integrity (and David's for that matter, although I can obviously not speak for his motivations). — Coren ^(talk) 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that [in the last hour of 24]] that [I, Coren] "lifted the protection at the request of the editor so that they could request an unblock, as it was a reasonable request," is highly insulting and is close to wheel-warring, in my mind. It effectively says, 'I am trumping your judgment that this user cannot exercise restraint on their talk page even while blocked, without discussing it with you first.' With one hour left, it was not a reasonable request, it was a request to undermine me, which both of you were quick to oblige, and both of you informed me of this after the fact. Next time, run it by me first; you still do not seem to have drawn this lesson. El_C 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a user fails to exhibit restraint while blocked, it is conventional to protect their talk page for all or part of the duration and limit their active input to unblock-l. Nothing remrkable or groundbreaking there. So, why Coren felt that unprotecting (i.e. undoing my descision), with one hour remaining and without prior discussion, was "the only reasonable thing to do" (emphasis added) is beyond me. No, no apology. He has quite the audacity in demanding one, in fact, in light of his utter disregard toward myself. El_C 12:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, El C should be consulted before his actions are reversed. In this case there was more than met the eye. El C, I'd don't think there was actual collusion. I think Coren is a new admin, and he didn't understand a few things. How about you both forgive each other, and we move on from this unfortunate miunderstanding? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe You recently blocked the account Lindi James for being a sock puppet This user claims that he/she is not a sock puppet to the account Pebblesmaster as you allege.

I understand by looking up the contributions of ECW500 which seems to be the original account i can see some similarities but i can't access the history for Lindi James and can't figiure out how he is involved with this

I don't know the specifics of the case but i guess that an IP search showed that this user has the same IP address as a person that was using an account for negative purposes.

It would be appreciated if you would discuss this with(

He is unable to contact you as he is blocked hence i am only a messenger. So please do not shoot the messenger.

Let me know if i can help and how it turns out as im interested in this case. Thank you Printer222 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user can email the unblock mailing list or place {{unblock}} on their talk page. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ECW500 for the evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this account was identified as a sock puppet as they share the same IP address, this has already been identified in his talk page, it is an interent cafe. As this is an internet cafe there are going to be users that are identified as sock puppets but are not accounts that are used for good purposes. I canot see any trace of contributions made by this account that can be deemed to be not in the best intrest of wikipedia.

Why ban an account due to the fact that they share an ip address with a person who has been blocked. That's why this user created an account in the first place. Unless they can be directly linked to the sockpuppet they should have never been baned in the first place!!! Printer222 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a checkuser report that says all these are the same account, the same as "many already blocked account[s}" and "IP blocked - all of them, for quite some time". If you have a problem with the checkuser's conclusions, I suggest you discuss your concerns with her, Alison (talk · contribs). I will also note that the user hasn't done anything to help their chances of being unblocked by posting incivil comments.[16] - Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I re-ran the CU just to be certain, and the recent edits from User:Lindi James and their identical use of multiple IP addresses has only confirmed the matter. Same with a certain IP address involved in this matter. Consider it  Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 19:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About

Hello Jehochman. Since I noticed you giving a COI warning to one of the contributors to

Hi, I noticed that you while updating the tally for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 you removed a significant portion of the votes. I assume this was an accident so I undid it but please revert me if it served some purpose. -Icewedge (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That must have been a browser snafu. I sure didn't mean to do that. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out

DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Jonathan, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to working with you going into the future.
--A. B. ^(talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I was so impressed with your handling of that SEO COI case earlier this fall -- have you thought of doing OTRS work?

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about removing your post -- I didn't even realize it till you replaced it. I was removing the duplicate and you managed to stick your edit in at just the wrong time. Sorry about that! Gscshoyru (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it happens. Don't worry. Happy editing! - Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman, thanks for the explanation. Does the bureaucrat explain anywhere how he reached his decision then? At least I suppose he must have a rationale if the vote is in the 70-80 range. I looked around, but couldn't find anything. Best regards.

The bureaucrat is Rdsmith4, I believe. You can ask him to explain. All sysops are required to explain actions when requested politely by a community member. For a long established editor, 74% is typically a passing grade. The theory, as I understand, is that editors with higher edit counts tend to accumulate more opposes. A less well-known editor tends to sail through. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan - in light of your comment here, could you take a look at this please, which I just posted? It seems clear to me that Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another sock of Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as was MindGuerilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and several others, and I think he too should be indef blocked. I'm interested in your view. Tvoz |talk 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have blocked Mister ricochet (talk · contribs) for 48 hours and requested checkuser. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safest not to block suspected socks until checkuser results are in. You don't want to become one of Charles Matthews' "test cases," believe me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's moot now - CU confirms what behavior amply demonstrated. Thanks Tvoz |talk 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond arritt was being cheeky. Given the admission diff and the same exact sequence of userboxes on the userpages (bless them, those userboxes are useful for something), this was a

obvious sock. The CU was done to uncover additional socks and IPs, which will help prevent future disruption. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually I wasn't being cheeky. Had I been aware of the self-admission I'd not have made the comment. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the evidence is spread over a few pages. I was afraid the request for checkuser might be turned down for being too obvious. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good call on that one. Of the socks, Sixstring1965 and Aisumasen also were active (a little) at the Commons. Note that there's also User:Hotcop2. I'm unsure whether he's another sock. On the one hand, he shares the John Lennon special interest, but that alone can hardly be taken as evidence—lots of people do. But his upload of Image:JohnMay1974.jpg is interesting, especially given that Sixstring1965 had uploaded it three days before at the Commons: [18]. (I can confirm that the two are indeed the same image.) And Special:Undelete/Image:Admrlwillis.jpg is also rather interesting. (The image is now at Image:Admrl willis.jpg...) On the other hand, the edit history of his user page makes his being a sock a little less likely, unless he was so smart to use the other accounts to obscure the connection. Hotcop2 has claimed in e-mail to me (following this edit) to be the person given as the copyright owner at Image:DWHOF2001.jpg... Lupo 08:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I just cross-checked contribs for Hotcop2 and Sixstring1965. There's lots of overlap across a range of subjects (not just Beatles), and common stylistic quirks in their edit summaries. I'm not quite ready to make an outright accusation of sockpuppetry but I think there may be enough to merit a RFCU. Over to you, Jonathan... Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may impose, i would very, very much like to be kept in the loop about this. I've dealt with at least two different instances of SixString1965's sockpuppets, and the creep himself. I think I know his editing style pretty well. Maybe am just really gullible, but I don't think that Hotcop2 is a sock fro SixString.

The first thing that makes me doubt the socking is that when I was pissing the two of them off in the Lennon article by asking for lots of citations and the like, the got angry and uncivil in completely different ways. Hotcop was somehow more restrained - I am not sure how to describe it better than that.

The second thing is that SixString is usually caught because - and there is no other way to say it - too fucking stupid to avoid getting caught. Setting up Hotcop as a secret identity seems far too far-sighted for Sixstring. After all, if he had a second account in Hotcop, why set up all those other accounts and use them, stupidly.

One of those accounts was a play on my name, and probably intended to mess with me. And yet, Hotcop has - since our initial clash, been really civil and polite to me. Six never demonstrated that sort of restraint. A look at Realsanpaku or Mister ricochet shows that this person chose to attack me (and others) against his own personal interest. There's a real need to feel that he's the cleverest guy in the room; unfortunately for him, he's only a legend in his own mind. Hotcop's demonstrated psychology is someone who digs Lennon, and wants to feel like he's doing something for one of his personal heroes.

Lastly, the image thing did give me pause when it first came up, but he seemed to go about it in the right way, whereas Six, Realsanpaku and Mister ricochet all tried to do things quickly and aimed for immediate effect, and not to be durable - which is what I truly feel Hotcop was aiming for.

However, these are just feelings and impressions, and sometimes they are wrong. I've just had a lot of contact with Sixstring, and almost all of his socks, and i just don't think that they are the same person. If any similar image stuff was popping up, I would ask Hotcop2 if he had been given the stuff by Sixstring to put up. Otherwise, i don;t really see connection. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tend to agree with you now that I've received an email about this. I have unblocked the user and will try to help him with the editing problems. It seems possible that he may have unknowingly become caught up in this. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the image stuff? two guys claiming to know two different people connected to Lennon initially sent up a warning flag for me, too, but HotCop seemed genuinely interested in proving that his contact was the real thing, and did the actual work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image stuff was similar to the banned editor, and there were edits to the User page by Sixstring1965 and Mister ricochet. Fortunately, after the block I took a second look and decided that the situation was not as clear as I originally thought, so I decided to unblock the user. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman, I've sent you an email, please check. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have done as you asked. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're game, would you mind checking out the last few sections of Talk:Waterboarding? There is a ton there, but the last 5-6 are the primarily current ones. All the rest are basically done in building a consensus over the past 30~ days. Given it's ultra-high profile nature, the chat has been decidedly civil, but given it's nature and that you edit under your real name I'll obviously understand if you don't want to wade in.

In that case, any recommendations for an admin or two that very good on RS and NPOV balancing issues who are neutral? :) My main concern is that I'm fine with adding language that favors a less "is torture" tone, if such sources could be found, but they've yet to be and people keep insisting otherwise. I'm basically looking for a few folks to watchlist it and chime in when anyone on any side of any fence starts to deviate from firm NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps banning this sad little moppet by machine ID seems a better course. Current ID: User:Youcantcatchme - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, he's been blocked and his underlying IP has too. Bummer! - Alison ^❤ 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 December, 2007, a fact from the article knol, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Thanks for the nom. --Royalbroil 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't come close to "responding", and he's blanked every comment (including the entire threaded discussion regarding his block) that has questioned any of his actions. That you would post a "trolling" link at my page after the messages I left (did you read them) is a bit over-the-top, don't you think? Mr Which??? 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you useful advice. Read my statement quite literally. Make sure your posting does not fit any trolling patterns or memes and then go post your question on the appropriate noticeboard. That will get you to the place you want to go. Try it, and let me know how it works for you. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "advice" was not useful. You tacitly called me a troll for posting to a user talkpage. As far as posting to the "appropriate noticeboard", what noticeboard would that be? As for JzG's behavior, do you agree with how he's acting? Mr Which??? 16:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are starting to prove a point that I did not seek to make. Look at the header of

relax and do something else. If a user or an admin needs to be corrected, there is no need to jump at the first opportunity; they will prove the need over and over again and somebody will eventually do what's necessary. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm proving no point. I'm a bit frustrated, which is understandable, given that I'd made it clear that my last post to his talk page was my last post to it, unless he chose to make more bad blocks on newbies that I notice. What purpose did your post to my page accomplish other than upping the drama a bit? Mr Which??? 17:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to resolve your frustration. Given Guy's reaction, it seems like there might be history between you. Perhaps it would be best to let somebody else take the lead. Perhaps you can report the incident to a neutral administrator and ask them to investigate it for you. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy has a "history" with anyone who takes issue with his admin actions. Check his responses to Alansohn, Joe, and others throughout the thread we discussed his block of Timjowers in. Oh, wait, he blanked that whole thread. Perhaps you could check out Irpen's advice to him? Oh, no, that one's blanked too. As I said in my last post there, I won't be dealing with him again, unless he makes another bad block that I happen to notice. I have no desire to further escalate the drama by attempting to get him sanctioned. And AN/I made it clear last evening that even those who disagree with how he conducted himself during the incident aren't willing to truly call him on the carpet about it. If the community of admins don't have the stomach to deal with it, then I am not going to further pursue the issue at this time. Mr Which??? 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please put them - SEO Spam domains on my talk page and I will investigate and put the owner domains on PHSDL Spam domains list...

If they want to be Famous SEO I aill oblige. http://seolinkmaster.blogspot.com/ I went down to blogspot and found out it's Indian Spam SEO trading links. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re current situation on

We have

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of violence. Once that is in an agreed form, it can be upgraded to policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

	League of Copyeditors roll call
	Greetings from the The League of Copyeditors .

Gracias

Thanks for the advice, you're right, I know. It's just Wiki-Road Rage sometimes, I guess.

(NASA399 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I doubt Wordbywordbyword (talk · contribs) is a sock of Kirbytime because I'm certain that Kirbytime couldn't come up with this quality of an article, which has references and looks like a very good contribution for a starter article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to ask again, and you posted an offer before, but could I draw your attention to this? That page is falling apart fast with outside of policy POV pushing, and I think my attempts to try to broker anything there are completely fallen apart. Lawrence Cohen 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I EC'd you while adding the sections for discussions. Your comment to Randy is here. Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see

• Mattisse (talk · contribs)
• Psychonaut (talk · contribs)
• A Kiwi (talk · contribs)
• Soulgany101 (talk · contribs)
• Penbat (talk · contribs)
• Kreb Dragonrider (talk · contribs)
• Deathphoenix (talk · contribs)

and FayssalF needs to recuse because of previous involvement. You can find additional evidence on Psychonaut's talkpage. Wise admins counseled a year ago this would be a circus. hmmmmm . They're all gone, smart fellows they were. Have a ball; Z has interrupted my editing for a year and a half. This is not going to take the rest of my holidays. This is a problem furthered by SV's untimely unblock where she should have let uninvolved admins handle the matter; the community needs to solve it. Oh, and how do you plan to handle Jimbo's involvement, since apparently it is his support (perceived or real) of her that has allowed Z to feel enabled to continue the behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel no ownership nor need to manage this case. The Committee will handle it. You will get justice; that is my promise to you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I won't. I know a bit more about this issue than you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment at my talkpage. I know that it is a rather unfashionable mindset, but I think ArbCom works very well in circumstances such as these. It allows all participants access to each others viewpoints and interpretations of events - without drama and interruption - which can be a very salutary experience. It is also the only authority august enough (outside possibly of Jimbo) to have its decisions properly considered by all participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman, is there a policy that states your allowed to ignore other editors completely even if it affects the overall good of a certain article. I got into an agrument with TheHYPO and he refuses to talk to me, I apologize to him and try to make amends and he still refuses. I need to be able to talk with him regarding the article on the band Barenaked Ladies as I would like to get the article nominated for good article status. Writer1400 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can try

editor assistance reports to see if somebody would be willing to informally mediate the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

These are my suggestions to make your life easier by not having this user end all of his disputes by asking you to fix it for him, as he has so far done three times just to you with regards to his disagreements with me over one article. Naturally, it's up to you to do what you think is best. Thank you for your time in reading this; I would like to be clear that this is directed at you, and not at Writer1400. I have previously directed most of these points (other than the latest point of non-reply) to him without success. I promise not to engage in any form of argument with other users on your personaltalk page. Have a pleasant day. TheHYPO (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that stuff that TheHYPO just posted, I don't understand why he can't just tell me himself. Sorry Jehochman if I bothered you. The reason why I usually come to you with most issues is because I know your right so I trust what you said. If I ever bothered you like TheHYPO is accusing me of, then I'm sorry. This whole situation is a shame, it can easily be solved if TheHYPO would just be willing to talk so we can settle these differences. Writer1400 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to talk to him if he doesn't want to talk. Just edit as best you can. Jehochman ^Talk 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jehochman. Writer1400 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided I'm not going to edit anymore on wikipedia. I'm done as an editor. I don't think I'm good enough. I didn't think I was that bad as an editor but I guess I am. Take care Jehochman, thank you for everything. Writer1400 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "The section I deleted did not belong on this talk page. Article talk pages are not the proper venue to leave warnings. If you have an issue about improper use of

If RFCU is used improperly, or if there are attempts to

WP:ANI as you like. Most likely the user is just unfamiliar when to request checkuser, and friendly advice is all he needs. Jehochman ^Talk 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What you've probably got at

WP:BITE, by the way. Neutral Good (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

  1. Do you consider yourself to be an activist on behalf of people with Aspergers?

  2. Have you ever recruited other people who share your point of view to edit Wikipedia, specifically Asperger syndrome and any related articles?

  3. Do you operate a website about Asperger syndrome?

--Zeraeph (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice for all! Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never quarrel with that sentiment, it's one of my personal favorites.--Zeraeph (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has accepted, it opens tomorrow, shall we shake hands and wish one another a Happy New Year? --Zeraeph (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope that my comments at User talk:Zeraeph did not imply that I considered the questions a "trap", and I unreservedly apologise if that was the impression given. My reasons for writing what I did was i) not knowing how Z's Aspergers manifests itself I felt that I should clarify that your requests were not binding (options not always being a concept that those on the Autistic Spectrum can internalise), and ii) um... not having the sense to check whether she had answered elsewhere. Since Z has chosen to answer, and I am confident in your ability to consider the information with due nuetrality, I consider my comments moot. Regards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No apology needed! You are welcome to question my actions at any time, and I appreciate your feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at my new comments on

More of these "very dynamic" Sprint IPs that "leave no trail" and all have the same stance and position here. And more six forward slash IP supports. The whole situation is becoming a sockpuppet party on those pages even worse if this guy can change IPs at will. Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are limits to what can be done in fairness. But articles that these folks like to edit should be protected from anon ip edits. I think we also need a protection level that says you need -- say 150 edits or more in article space -- before you can edit some articles with that level of protection. This would go a long way to stopping socks and we could stop witch hunting. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasonable evidence to believe these people are different. Most of the RFCU confirmed socks for the same IP all have history of working on the Free Republic article. That includes the IP of one of the worst trolls this site has apparently known, this Palatine character, who had that as his major problem. That IP, plus a host of others with the same language, tone and curious identical ```support``` language all arrive at once on the waterboarding talk page, at the same time, and all with the exact same stance? If not entirely sockpuppetry it's flagrant meatpuppetry. Either is a rules violation. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all' these unique human beings, all using the same ISP, all with matching political viewpoints, all with matching oddball habits of forming their ```support``` !votes, and all with basically the same language all arrived independent of each other, as soon as the "consensus" fight began to turn, and there were basically two people on the non-torture side of the debate? I've got a swell bridge for you too, that's only moderately used. Lawrence Cohen 19:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is coincidence. I do not think it is not coincidence. I do not consider it worthwhile to be concerned about. To me, consensus is not the count of the votes, but rather the weight of the votes. The reasoning. So I do not stress over such things. Some people find this very distracting. I do not. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it it is sockpuppetry and stacking the discussion, it's a major problem. No one editor is entitled to more weight in discussion than any other. It is a bannable offense. Lawrence Cohen 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No problem with that. But its not a problem or a concern for me as an editor. I find it to be something that causes more stress than is needed. But perhaps it is because some people are so vigilant that I have never really been knowingly affected. On the other hand though, maybe some folks just stress over that stuff too much. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if the abusive sockpuppetry was in opposition to what you see as a stance supported by policy (as it is in this case) you would feel different. Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it escaped your attention, but if you look you will see that I took very little to zero notice of them even though some people might suppose that they supported my position. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it has to go there FIRST? To me that is a bit extreme. What are the disruptive editing practices you see? The sockpuppets seem to be handled. If they really were sockpuppets, which I think is debatable but probable. Wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but does not past the smell test. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. You left a very ambiguous message saying that a contribution of mine appears to have been non-neutral and may have been removed. It has been removed, but you were not the one who removed it. Two questions:

1) How did this come to your attention?

and

2) How does the statement "the debate over whether or not biological factors influence the male decision to rape still causes great controversy, espescially between feminists and sociobiologists" convery a non-neutral POV? As far as I can tell, it acknowledges both sides of the argument but favors neither; which, to my knowledge, is the very definition of neutrality. The only other reason I can think of for removing the statement is if it is false, but that cannot be the case as the history of the rape page itself testifies to its veracity.

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MannaOfTheMessiah (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a third party who happened to notice your comment, I can say on the face of it that the sentence you quoted seems to assert that all Femanists and Sociobiologists hold the opinions you've attributed to them, or that they are more strongly opinionated than anyone else on the subject. I don't think that's a proper assertment. TheHYPO (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just received a harassing comment on my user talk page from the same user who keeps reverting edits in Middletown, Connecticut. What should I do? (besides delete it?) --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for two weeks. By then they will hopefully lose interest in bothering you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much :) You may also want to take a look at 159.247.3.210, as it has also been a source of attacks from this user. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just received another harassing post to my talk page by same user under 129.133.124.203. Sorry this has turned into such a nighmare. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected your talk page for one week. This should prevent further disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again; disruptive comments appearing on talk page of article Middletown, Connecticut , by 129.133.124.203 --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I just noticed your comment. By all means, feel free to take over. Regards, El_C 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have the situation well in hand. Jehochman ^Talk 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Since you were the blocking admin for 129.133.124.199 (talk · contribs) due to his conduct at Middletown, Connecticut, I thought you might be interested in this post which would appear to be the same person evading the block. It is to be noted that rather than revert warring, he's discussing matters on the talk page. Of course the judgement call on what to do with him is all yours, oh mop laden one! :-) Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I invited the user to open an account and behave themselves. If they cause trouble they can be blocked again. Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again getting deletes in the Middletown article from the same user via 66.19.34.88. Again, sorry for the nightmare this has turned into. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take that back; looks like it was an actual contribution to the talk page. Sorry, it's getting later here; I should probably bow out for now. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[19] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my disputes with Writer1400 have lead to any drama being forced upon you; Every minor disagreement with him have resulted in a major blowup of drama, and I'm sorry if you got caught in the middle of it. TheHYPO (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Let the user go in peace. Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind thoughts. Its ok if we do not always agree, but we do not have to be disagreeable! I hope I am not. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]