User talk:Jehochman

Please leave a new message. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

Wikipedia:Griefing Vandalism

I noticed you seemed to be a primary editor on the Wikipedia:Griefing essay, so I thought I'd let you know about some vandalism I noticed today. IP address 75.183.114.232 posted an entire rambling paragraph defacing the authors of the essay and serving no purpose but obvious disruption. The talk page was also deleted, replaced with a message claiming to be from a "Lord Wulf", which said that the article was "fail". I put a request on the Administrators' notice board as well, recommending IP bans. Thanks, --Thecitrusking (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Arb decisions

How long has SA been gone and how long is his scheduled exile? I'm curious about the process and whether sanctions are shortened and under what circumstances. I also miss SA because I can't banter with him and leave sarcastic and derisive comments attacking scientific assumptions and the sometimes fanatic embrace of what passes for scientific truth without people gettign the wrong idea. When he's not here people think I'm mocking him unfairly, but in actuality I'm just giving him a hard time and stirring the pot because and I like to see what kind of soup develops. It's an evolutionary process of sorts... And, of course, I enjoy his collegial comments and insights and consider him a friend. Anyway, if you're in touch with him say hi. I don't use e-mail on Wikipedia because my tinfoil hat can't protect me from its ill effects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd refrain from using sarcasm around explosive situations. SA and I aren't close. You might ask User:Durova instead. Jehochman ^Talk 07:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

David Boothroyd

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

Hi there. I think you should revert your speedy deletion decision in this case. Seeing that the new Register article was only published yesterday, the article covered more than the article previously deleted at AFD and thus was not substantially identical, which is a key requirement to apply G4. Regards SoWhy 08:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The page was recreated after you deleted it. Could you do so again and salt it? Or possibly block the editor if he does so again?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me you're the one going around consensus by preventing a discussion on significant developments and new media coverage. TAway (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are an inch from being blocked for WP:BLP and WP:POINT. Don't push your luck. Want to discuss it? Try WP:DRV. Jehochman ^Talk 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, a whole inch? I'm not intimidated by your threats in the least, and I haven't violated the BLP policy one bit; every bit of that article was reliably sourced. Your deletion was totally inappropriate given recent developments. TAway (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion is not kind to those who appear to be engaging in a coverup (even when there is no actual coverup). Once matters leave our little universe, our rules no longer apply and there could be real world implications. ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. He's in for some rough times. However, our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his problems. The register article is quite public. I don't see how anything is being covered up. People can read all the salacious details there. Wikipedia is not the only site on the Internet. Jehochman ^Talk 08:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not the only site on the Internet" - heresy! burn the witch! I can't remember who said the wise words I posted above (it is indeed a quote...), but I reckon they'd probably respond with something about not only doing the right thing, but being seen to do the right thing, blocks, protections and general circle forming probably not included :-) - still the most important thing is to keep talking sensibly about this - the only thing which is giving me pause for thought is the elected official thing.... I'm chewing over my views on that one and how it relates to subject requests for article deletion at the mo... this is an interesting one, to be sure :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)and in case it's not bloomin obvious, the smiles etc. are intended to convey that as long as dialog continues somewhere, somehow, then I don't really see either you or TAway as doing anything particularly odd / outrageous... let's talk now.....

There's a discussion at WP:DRV. That's where this can be finally resolved. I kept posting that link, and somebody finally took up my suggestion! Ah, now I can have peace and quiet on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 08:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm... well *i* heard that you were showing the champions league final tonight on your big flat screen, and there was gonna be free beer? I've invited thirty odd of my closest friends round too? .... /me steals a comfy spot on the sofa and cracks open a beer...... only 10 odd hours to go :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

TAway has posted his version of the article on his user page — not a great idea. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked them for that as I think they'll just rattle around and post it at all kinds of odd places if they are allowed to continue editing. Jehochman ^Talk 08:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agreed with the closing of the 2nd nomination and wasn't trying to challenge it or anything with the 3rd one. I just figured that because the 2nd nomination was "out of process," any Deletion review would have inevitably led back to AFD, so I filed a 3rd one in a means to (hopefully) get closure on the issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD/User:TAway

Just to let you be aware of my opinions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratualtions

Good work on Gamma-ray burst. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

We're having some civility and AGF issues on this talk page, despite requests and warnings. Could you take a look/offer advice? It's the 911 deniers section specifically. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment changing.

Cussing by WebHamster

Please don't ever change my comments just because I use words you don't personally like. If you want to revise someone's comments try sticking to your own. --WebHamster 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Would you prefer that I block you for disruption and incivility? Jehochman Talk 21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I would prefer that you left my comments the fuck alone, but I will remain civil and not tell you where you can stick your threat. --WebHamster 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Socking at Arbitration

Reply to:

• 198.161.174.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would you consider blocking this account? Their very recent contributions at arbitration seem to indicate further socking after past warnings. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this guy still an issue? Sorry, I haven't been around lately. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

How much time do you have on your hands? Are you conflicted on Cold Fusion, myself or User:Abd? Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much interested in that quagmire, and I'm friends with Abd. You could try User:Cryptic C62. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I think we need an honest broker to make things work. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't expect you to get involved with Cold fusion, J., it is indeed a quagmire. Hipocrite is carrying on in the traditions of ScienceApologist, only much worse, as near as I can tell. About the beginning of May, he showed up at cold fusion and inflamed disputes there, using bald reverts to exclude RS text. I generally follow a voluntary 1RR restriction, preferring to work out disputes in Talk, but, there, Talk was going nowhere, so on May 21 or so, I did use more reverts than usual. They were still reverts aimed at finding compromise, i.e., only partial reverts, and, in fact, some compromises were worked out (and remained) but I hit, by the extreme interpretation of any reassertion of content, even if modified to seek consensus, I hit 4RR; Hipocrite hit 3RR. (My final edit was reverted just before protection by another editor.) The article was protected for a week. After being off protection for a few days, another edit war started up. I made one edit that Hipocrite vigorously opposed, but no actual reverts. Hipocrite reverted, June 1, GetLinkPrimitiveParams,[GetLinkPrimitiveParams], me,[1][2] , and Coppertwig.[3]. But then I think he realized that he'd hit 3RR and he undid the Coppertwig reversion. He had requested page protection, though most of the edit warring was him. And while page protection was pending, he then heavily edited the lead, adding language that he knows, absolutely, as shown by subsequent discussion, would be against consensus. Discussion of this, with links to more detail at RfPP, is at Talk:Cold_fusion#Page_protection

J., I think he's trolling to see how outrageous he can get. He is deliberately taking a highly disruptive path, fomenting dissent among editors who were, though with some difficulty, working together. He's taking an extreme anti-fringe opinion, in clear violation of the RfAr on Fringe science, categorically excluding text based on sources because they are allegedly fringe, even though published under peer review and/or by reputable publishers -- such as World Scientific or the American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, and when there is no contradiction, such as these sources asserting what explanations have been proposed, which shouldn't be controversial at all. I can document all this, and show how Hipocrite's disruptive behavior came to my attention while ScienceApologist was trolling to be blocked for spelling corrections; I was involved in making it clear what was happening, and Hipocrite was very much participating in that disruption, filing AE after AE (including one on me) that were closed as basically preposterous.

I'm not asking you for use of tools, I wouldn't do that. But I am asking you for advice. I've been thinking of going to Arbitration Enforcement, since there are definitely issues here around enforcement of the Fringe science arbitration. The disruption from Hipocrite is way beyond an ordinary content dispute; there are a number of editors who are absolutely convinced that cold fusion is pure bunk, and they aren't problems, and they will make reasonable compromises, but the gaming of protection was really intolerable. He's now got "pathological science" and "pariah field" and some other zingers locked into the lead, which violates old and clear consensus that Cold fusion isn't pseudoscience, but fringe science (and I claim it's crossed the boundary into emerging science, still highly controversial, and that's why there is all this recent reliable secondary source, and no recent contrary source of comparable quality, just pop media regurgitation of old copy.

To counter my assertion of the recent major review of the field by Storms (2007, World Scientific), simply noting one of the most notable theories as to how cold fusion could occur, not anything that wasn't 100% verifiable, i.e., it was attributed, etc., Hipocrite removed it and added old tertiary or passing-comment material saying that all theories that explain cold fusion are "ad hoc." From 1999 or 2002. In the latest edit warring, I'd added a reference to paper by the developer of that hypothesis (proposed originally around 2002 or 2003, I think), Takahashi, in the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, (2008, American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press) and he took it out as if it was nothing. What he took out on this had one primary source (Takahashi himself) and two secondary sources (Storms and a paper published in Naturwissenschaften the beginning of this year by Mosier-Boss that refers to the Takahashi theory. It's well-known in the field, one of maybe three or four top competing theories; Takahashi's theory is really just a sophisticated mathematical analysis of the situation in the palladium environment, at the surface, it doesn't seem to be new physics, like some of the other theories. The point: what he was taking out was better sourced than most material in the article, and it's obvious that the objection isn't lack of reliable source, it is that he disagrees with the content of those sources. These aren't fringe publishers.

How do you think I should proceed, for greatest efficiency and least disruption? --Abd (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

CyberLink

I've restored the article, a a user wanted to work on the article, it is a notable company, and, with respect, I don't see how G11 applied. See User talk:MZMcBride#Deleted article - Cyberlink. –xeno^talk 20:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to look at the situation closely to understand why G11 applied. The set of articles were purely promotional. A fundamental rewrite would have been necessary to create an encyclopedia article. (It's still necessary, but I see that there are news appearances sufficient to write a proper article, and editors willing to undertake the task.) Rather than debating whether this or that criteria is satisfied, it would be more productive to improve the article. Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I see how the sea of redlinks in the article certainly makes it look spammy. If the user doesn't improve it beyond G11, I'll take a look myself. –xeno^talk 06:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You (and I) have been accused of edit warring

See [4]. I think User:Unomi is a bit confused. :-) Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Check my comment. Thank you for the tip. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohh Jehochman, I thought you'd corrected your errant ways. Wasn't your recent block enough? ;) Franamax (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Boothroyd

Yes, there is no way I would move this into article space without prior approval. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, you've got mail. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, are you going to clarify what in particular your concern is with that NPOV tag? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I left comments on the talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Long time listener, first time caller

Long time listener first time caller, actually! You really think the only people interested in Wikipedia are former editors, that people curious about Wikipedia don't see Wikipedia stories and sites like the Wikipedia Review and then join the project to address what they see as problems? You will stop baselessly accusing me of being a sockpuppet immediately. Put up and make your case with evidence or drop it. TAway (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive comment

Cirt is a damn good article creator.

Jehochman, I just wanted to say thank you very much for this positive comment about me. I really appreciate it. :) Cirt (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer controversy

If that pops on DRV please let me know on my talk, if I miss it. I consider this request invalidates any claims of canvassing on the matter in the future (and I'm only saying this as certain people who may be resurrected users with former accounts) apparently have gone insane. rootology (C)(T) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK

I am just getting a bit annoyed that, what I thought was a good thing to do, has ended up with me feeling like I have been s**t on. It is my opinion that it is easy to be rude here, and then walk away, than it is to defend yourself (which then starts getting classified as trolling/attacks etc). I do appreciate you saying that you saw my point yesterday, it gives me some hope that no everybody on this site is unreservedly arrogant. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

People are a bit jaded. The site is not a utopia. We have problems with banned users coming back with new accounts. The best suggestion I can give you is to dive into a topic of interest and try to improve an article. If you do that you'll find a lot of satisfaction in that activity. WP:ANI is a cesspool to be avoided. I'd recommend never posting there. If you run into trouble, you can ask me or some other administrator to help you. Thank you for caring. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I would really just rather get back to the Reference Desk, which I enjoy reading and posting on, and maybe some articles as you suggest. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That note on the MFD

[5] That was me that put that up there. It's not binding, of course. rootology (C)(T) 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No big deal, but this ruckus has gone on way too long already. We should let it wind down. I am pretty ambivalent about the whole thing (have an article, don't have an article), except that I want to issue to be resolved so people can get back to writing articles. I believe somebody could write a good article, but probably now isn't the time to do it. Once things calm down maybe somebody like Cirt will do it properly. What's there now and what's been there in the past has been unacceptable level of quality. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Socking case

Hi. As an original blocking admin here [6], you might be interested in this case [7]. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All set. Jehochman ^Talk 12:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was quick. M0RD00R (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to have a Nazgûl at my door. When the dark lord summons, I attend. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on WikiEN-l

By David, not me—http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101202.html ;-)

(I wasn't not sure if you read the list and so thought a courtesy note might be in order.)

AGK 12:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See http://twitter.com/Jehochman#/favorites?user=Jehochman Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OpenSeven/AdmiralKolchak

Concerning WP:Sockpuppet investigations/OpenSeven: As a non-admin I can't check this, but I seem to remember that in a conflict with OpenSeven, AdmiralKolchak appeared out of nowhere (to my great surprise, I daresay) trying to mediate. Is that correct? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add your evidence to that case. I agree that AdmiralKolchak (talk · contribs) is a recycled user. A typical new user does not add infoboxes to articles and submit them to [[WP:DYK|Did you know?}} within their first half dozen edits.[8] That alone is not enough to support a finding of sock puppetry, but perhaps additional evidence can be found via a careful analysis. Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Update! Hans Adler, you have excellent powers of observation. Checkuser has confirmed that connection. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, except for my comment on Talk:Sam Blacketer controversy where I said I expect OpenSeven won't comment any more to avoid checkuser scrutiny. I made the above comment after reading the outcome. I only wrote here because I didn't know if I was still allowed to comment directly on the SPI case. But seeing recent activity there I will simply do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I see that in my first comment here I forgot to mention WP:Sam Blacketer controversy as the locus of the conflict, so you could have no idea what I was talking about. Sorry! --Hans Adler (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren

Your closing comment on WP:AE has a factual error: it wasn't Digwuren who posted the report about me, but Biophys. Also, my report is not a tit-for-tat move. The edit warring by Digwuren has been going on for a long time. The only reason why I decided to file the report now was because I was already at it (collecting diffs) and had time. My only wish is that the diffs be examined neutrally, irrespectible of who filed the report or at what time point it was filed. The diffs are clear evidence of sustained edit warring, the same action Digwuren was blocked for before for a year. I have been edit warring too. Probably even to the point that a voluntary 1RR restriction might be a good idea for a while. But this is irrelevant to Digwuren's case; his edit warring should be seen in the light of WP:DIGWUREN and his block log only. Some of the diffs (for example 14, which also was a 3RR violation) are very recent. I'm afraid that there is no indication that Digwuren is going to stop this behaviour if nothing is done. Offliner (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also that I filed the Digwuren report after encouraged to do so by User:Sandstein here. This discussion is from 12 June. Biophys posted his report about me on 18 June. My report about Digwuren is not a tit-for-tat move for Biophys' report; neither is it tit-for-tat move for anything. As can be seen from the above diff, I was thinking of posting the Digwuren report already on 12 June. Offliner (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sandstein should have noted this on the thread, or you should have said so clearly when filing the thread. Moreover, Sandstein should have dealt with the matter fully in the thread Digwuren filed about you if he thought Digwuren needed to be sanctioned. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are stretching what Sandstein said. He said, in general, not in this particular case. After a nationalist tag team files a report against you, for you to turn around and file a report against their standard bearer is not helpful. I am of half a mind to ask ArbCom to ban the whole lot of disruptive editors around Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions are worthless. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What I meant about Sandstein's comments[9][10] (he made those comments after Shotlandiya was blocked on WP:AE for BLP violations and for edit warring with Digwuren & Co) was this: he said (my interpretation) that we should examine each editor's behaviour individually, without regarding the general issue (we already has an ArbCom case about that) or who is filing the report and what his role in the issue might be.

I can't help but having the feeling that the evidence about Digwuren was not really looked at because of the name of the editor who filed the report (and because of the time it was filed at.) I first thought I should file the report anynomously (trough an admin or something) precisely because of this (and because of what you said about filing a report after being on the receiving end.) I wonder the result would have been different if I had?

Also, what do you suggest I should do if Digwuren continues to edit war and commit other violations? Offliner (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the arbitration request. I think it was the right thing to do. My comments above are now redundant. Offliner (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Go ahead and explain why we need a case, and feel free to add any parties you think are essential to finally resolving the matter. Be sure to notify them. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

I believe this issue has been resolved at AE. Why did you file the new case? This is contrary to your own recommendation. I do not want to be involved in any battles. Sorry. Biophys (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been years of endless battling over these articles. I am drawing a line here and now. Jehochman ^Talk 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly articles are you talking about?Biophys (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole slew of East European topics where nationalistic disputes fester. I keep seeing the same names fighting with each other at these places. Some editors are very good, others less so. We need witnesses to come forward and help distinguish the good from the bad. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the problem. Good editors are those who create interesting and well sourced content. Perfect editors even manage to create neutral content, which is easy in science or geography but nearly impossible in politics. Bad editors are those who remove interesting and well sourced content from WP articles, or who remove the entire articles by making such articles redirects (like in diffs I provided at AE). But one should know the subject to decide if the content was fair. That is why ArbCom does not care about WP content. It only cares about people's behavior. Some of the worst content editors, who actually degrade WP articles, behave more or less by "the rules". They will win in such proceeding. One of the best content editors I met had communication problems and therefore was banned. There is no justice here.Biophys (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalistic disputes festering" is an over-simplification. I have had more cordial editing relationships with people paid to push pro-Russian propaganda on Wikipedia than with a number of pro-official-Russian-position editors. Nothing is festering, there is a new crop of said editors going through the same old motions of edit warring, provocation, then accusation upon response to provocation. I've seen it all before. I honestly don't see what the new arbitration action will accomplish, we already have an arbitration decision and sanctions which apply. Don't wring your hands, if you've been watching the space, warn editors practicing inappropriate editorial behavior, and if they persist, invoke the remedies already extant. It's as simple as that. Yet another arbitration is, in the end, just an invitation to polarize and escalate the conflict. PetersV       TALK 05:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Based on other editors' accusations, Hiberniantears labeled me a SPA. It was only quite some time later (felt like weeks) that Hiberniantears retracted that characterization as incorrect. Your hope for "witnesses" is ill-advised as arbitrations deal with presented evidence and have nothing to do with determining objectively over the course of time, based on direct and multiple interactions with an accused editor, whether or not accusations against an editor are borne out or not. If you wish to remedy the situation which you decry, you already have the tools available. PetersV       TALK 05:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

At RFARB

I hope my comment there will not be seen as personal, but just to be clear: I gather you are an experienced editor and admin, but I don't understand why I was listed as a party there. I certainly don't want to be dragged into another lengthy ArbCom case in an issue I dedicate maybe one or two comments / content edits in a week... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You commented at AE on a thread leading to the request. If your opinion helps create a deadlock, then you become involved. The big problem is that administrators don't agree on how to handle the AE requests.Jehochman ^Talk 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a problem, but the solution is not to force everyone to agree, but to discuss it further and try to reach a civil concensus. Assuming bad faith toward other admins is not very helpful. I respect you as an admin and I assume good faith that you are both experienced and uninvolved in this issue, despite the fact that I don't totally agree with your comments/actions on AE. I'd expect that you'd extend the same courtesy towards me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this quite uncalled for. The EE arbcom findings related to me are irrelevant here (I am not interacting with Irpen, I am not edit warring and I am not using my admin powers). Let me repeat again: I am not involved in editing any controversial non-Lithuanian Baltics article on any regular basis, neither have I ever used my admin tools on related articles. What is it that makes you believe I am involved? And, let me repeat a question I asked you before: are you involved or uninvolved?

I could say that I find some of your recent comments, on AE and elsewhere, not the most helpful, to say the least. Such tit-for-tat however is unlikely to solve anything. In the spirit of cooperation, acknowledging we all make mistakes (including myself) and that you are an experienced admin, I would be willing to submit our disagreement to a wider discussion, in which several uninvolved admins (likely regulars at AE would be the best) would review my and your comments on this issue and other evidence, and decide whether any of us have acted improperly, and in particular, whether I should avoid EE threads at AE, and whether your comments towards me were appropriate.

All that said, I'd suggest - per Shelly's comment on my talk - that we bury our hatchet of disagreement before it grows any worse then it is and try to work together, as admins should, to bring peace to the affected articles/editors. As I said before: I respect you as an admin and I hope we can work together, not against each other, to the benefit of this project. Arguing among ourselves only benefits trolls and the like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment about deadlock and banning contributors from AE. In case you consider me a "vested contributor" (I filed two requests), I voluntarily agree do not file any new requests without a permission from Sandstein or another uninvolved administrator. Would that be OK? As about comments on requests submitted by others, I obviously will only comment if a request concerns me, directly or indirectly.Biophys (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I only made a polite suggestion here. Why did not you respond and instead suggested this? Please explain. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to issue me an official ban. I asked FloNight what she thinks. I do not want to be a problem and ready to follow any her recommendations, like do not be involved in any dispute resolution or whatever.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, Piotrus asked me by e-mail to comment on your warning to him. I agree that Piotrus should not act as administrator with respect to Eastern Europe cases, given his involvement in relevant disputes including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. But his recent comments to WP:AE do not appear to have been made with the intent to take enforcement actions as an uninvolved administrator. Whatever one may think of the merits of his comments, they were not among the most unconstructive by far. In view of this, I can understand his surprise at your message that appears to me, as a message among administrator colleagues, to be quite brusque. May I suggest that instead of issuing such warnings (which may not even be enforceable in this form), it might be more productive to continue our work on improving AE procedures? The way we have the template set up now, it should be quite clear in which section uninvolved admins are supposed discuss a case, so the problem should not arise again.

And Piotrus, while I do not think that there your comments as such were inappropriate, I would advise you (and any other editor or administrator who could be viewed as involved in an area of conflict, for that matter) to voluntarily refrain from commenting at AE on such matters unless it is your own conduct that is at issue. That's because such comments are simply not very useful: I for one tend to give opinions by users associated with the one or the other side of a conflict not much weight when arriving at an enforcement decision.  Sandstein  16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon reading my initial comment to Piotrus, I realized it would seem overly brusque, so I amended it almost immediately. Please comment on the amended version rather than the first draft. I agree that strengthening AE procedures will be useful. Have you seen User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview? I believe that will help greatly to crafting some sort of resolution. Perhaps the generous application of a 1RR restriction to the edit warring editors will be helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 16:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The message as amended is entirely unproblematic, and I am surprised that Piotrus did not mention it to me. Thanks for the link to Shell Kinney's extensive work; I'll support any revert restriction that she may choose to issue based on it.  Sandstein  21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did not have and still have no intention as acting as an admin (closing discussions or sanctioning editors) on AE and I believe nothing in my posts gave an indication to the contrary. I also support refactoring AE discussions in such a form that it clear who is an admin and who is not, and who is involved and who is not; however I do think we need more discussion on how to determine who is involved. As I've written above, I have never been a party to any major disputes in non-Lithuanian Baltic issues, hence I would see myself as quite uninvolved. But I am open to changing my opinion on whether I am involved or not, upon seeing some clear definitions on that that would indicate I am involved. Please note that the EE arbitration cited did not concern non-Lithuanian Baltic editors (some of whom, however, do appear to have commented in it voluntarily - but is this enough to say I am involved in content disputes in articles they, not I, edit?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus has always had good relations with Biophys and Digwuren, both having found a common interest in Russian-related disputes from early on (Ghirlandajo, Irpen, Vlad fedorov).

• As early as that Piotrus has already supported Biophys against a block ([11] [12] [13]).
• When the first Piotrus arbitration came, Biophys dutifully supported Piotrus (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Statement_by_Biophys) a few days after Piotrus attempted to defend Biophys against another block.[14]
• Piotrus also argues against a one-week block on Digwuren.[15] [16]
• He then tried to help Digwuren in the arbitration (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Comment_by_Piotrus), quite actively ([17]) and without success protested against the proposed one-year block.[18]
• Piotrus was one of the six users that Digwuren especially thanked in the goodbye statement.[19] Piotrus summarized that he "tried to defend" them ([20]) and draws a comparison to the "harassment of Digwuren's and other Estonian editors, harassment which was very similar to that of several Polish editors".[21]
• When the Piotrus 2 arbitration started, Biophys and co helped Piotrus. (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Statement_by_Biophys), Biophys being one of the most active users in the arbitration ([22]), so vigorously that he had to neglect his personal life dramatically.[23]. Piotrus had all reason to wish both a happy Christmas.[24] [25]
• He had to support Digwuren on an unblock request again.[26]
• A 3RR report on Biophys also attracted Piotrus' attention and naturally objection.[27]
• Piotrus helped Biophys again at the AN board.[28]
• Digwuren turned out to have supported Piotrus in a reported edit war.[29]
• Piotrus helped Digwuren at the AN board.[30]
• And now Piotrus shows up as supposedly uninvolved admin (as stated above) for those two at the AE board in yet another effort to support them.

Sciurinæ (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

About worthlessness

It doesn't take much to see who brings sources to the table and who contends all "POV"s must be presented as "equally valid." I regret your "I am of half a mind to ask ArbCom to ban the whole lot of disruptive editors around Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions are worthless." comment. They are worthless only if you fail to use them to stem clearly disruptive behavior. I would hope for more constructive commentary from an admin than expressing your frustration in public indicating you'd just like to line up and shoot the whole lot. I'm sorry, but from my perspective such statements only encourage those that seek to characterize this as nothing but a conflict of opinion. PetersV       TALK 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Review of evidence

If you (or someone else) is reviewing Biophys' case, can the evidence be updated a bit? After Sandstein's comments, I realized that the example diffs of POV-forking (Internet operations by Russian secret police) are rather old, and something more recent should have been mentioned instead. For example, the following is from April:

• Version of Russian apartment bombings from 17 April
• Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings from 19 April (created by Biophys on 17 April)

The see why I think this is a POV fork, please see Russavia's comments on the AfD discussion: [31]. Most of the material in the fork was cutpasted from the main article, minus all criticism of the theory of FSB involvement (thus, POV-fork). Much of the material was also available in yet another article [32] at the time. I don't know if this makes any difference or if you agree with me about the forking, but I thought a more recent example might be helpful. Offliner (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you may update the evidence. Please link to my diff should anybody criticize you for doing so. Jehochman ^Talk 19:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was lurking...

At Flo's page and saw your comment. You might try pushing user:Tony1 to get a wriggle on with his adminreview process. That's supposed to chuck out vexatious complaints from the get-go. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The dynamic is simple. Admin A attempts to stop disruptive group D. Members of D attack A. Everybody mills around looking because they don't want to be attacked themselves. A responds. D claims A is too "involved" to finish pursuing the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

nudge nudge

"power grab", "clowns", "sophistry"? Because they worry about drama sabotaging some difficult editor's return? Hey, if even I can placidly discuss this with David Shankbone ... Have a relaxing weekend amid the thunderstorms. Noroton (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling snarky today. The real clowns are the bankers in New York who have played silly buggers with the financial system, and then expect us to bail them out. The world needs more transparency and more input from the masses. Elitism is downright dangerous. Jehochman ^Talk 00:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Feeling snarky? Personally, I wouldn't know what that's like. What you're proposing would wreck the economy of Connecticut. We've been sucking the blood from the rest of the world for ages. I promise to spit out the window the next time I pass AIG's offices in Wilton, or GMAC in Stamford, or UBS in Stamford, or anywhere in Greenwich. I'll be doing a lot of spitting. I've just suggested to the arbs that they appoint you the first admin Executioner with a mandate to police my proposed discussion page for any violations of CIV or NPA. That'll learn ya. -- Noroton (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

NOR noticeboard

Your advice and comments would be very welcome, as I see you've dealt with User:WLRoss before. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Involvement levels at RFAR requests

Hi, was watching your recent Eastern Europe RFAR request from the wings. Didn't want to interfere while it was live, yet have a few questions. Not sure whether this parallel is correctly drawn or not, but it did seem at least a little like my inclusion of Jossi in the Scientology RFAR. Especially because--superficially--it could have appeared that I included him for no other reason than that he'd made a couple of comments at an AE discussion. Wondering what your thoughts are on standards for naming parties to case requests.

Jossi was an exceptional situation. At filing time I knew that Jossi had previously been in formal dispute resolution with the editor whose credibility he was disparaging, and I also had a long series of emails from Jossi concerning that editor--emails in which Jossi's representations did not hold up to scrutiny. During the early part of the case Jossi claimed to be uninvolved and that he had no evidence to give, yet he proposed a series of harsh findings and remedies against that editor and nobody else. It was useful to allow that administrator to suppose he had been named in the case by mistake--so that his actions during the case helped substantiate the pattern of deceptive behavior in a long term grudge. Although in retrospect, if I had been fully aware during the initial filing that those two editors had been through so much prior DR (10 formal attempts!) then probably would have requested a separate case.

Here's the dilemma: in that instance it helped to have a somewhat fluid standard for what constitutes sufficient involvement to name an administrator at RFAR, yet Wikipedia could use more administrators who help out at AE. People may get scared off by fears that two AE posts could get them mired for months in a full case. Heck, there's a decent chance that explains the scarcity of AE volunteers. What's your thinking on how to balance this? Durova^Charge! 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a funny request because the filing helped break the deadlock and made a case unnecessary. Administrators who go to AE should realize that their involvement in a thread may get them into a follow-on case should one be needed, simply because they have detailed knowledge of the situation. Being named should be no big deal. We all must be ready for our actions to be scrutinized at any time. I don't think liberally naming administrators in cases is going to discourage involvement. A much bigger impediment to involvement is the way that the Committee seems ready to second guess good faith administrative actions and label them abuse. Of course, other editors may take a different view. These are just my impressions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My own practice has been to be conservative about naming parties whose principal involvement has been simple commentary. Consider the brief reviews that got several parties named to one case. Although in principle your argument about welcoming scrutiny makes perfect sense, in practice it would have been far better if ten or fifteen people had initially reviewed an unblock request. If three review, and get called to account for reviewing superficially, that would seem to provide a disincentive against participation at reviews. You see the dilemma? In several respects I've been second guessing myself these last few months, wondering whether the expedience and subsequent validation of my own decision is really sustainable as principle, and where the lines ought to be drawn. Durova^Charge! 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That case was not without value to me. I learned the importance of fully investigating a matter before commenting. We really don't need drive-by comments at ANI, which is what I was doing. Being named was not a problem. My objection to that case was the shockingly poor way we were treated. I favor naming people liberally, but treating them as cooperative witnesses rather than as hostile parties. Jehochman ^Talk 01:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, what you realized about yourself at ANI is, of course, too common, and it is how ANI often makes bad decisions. Twenty editors making drive-by comments actually tells us little more than one, except about appearances. ANI should be confined to requests for immediate neutral administrator intervention, and should serve only to recruit a neutral admin; once one has volunteered, all discussion should be with that admin, who can supervise it and ensure that all sides are heard. Debate at ANI is like debate at a 911 emergency number. The phone call: "He's beating me, help! Police!" Man picks up the phone, "She's hysterical, no police are needed, I've called her doctor." And worse. Before the police are sent, Doctor calls. "She needs an adjustment of her medication." Neighbor calls, "I hear her screams, please send the police." What I've seen: a call for immediate administrator assistance, with one of the highest levels of emergency that can routinely happen on Wikipedia, an admin closing an AfD as a premature refiling, and encounters reversion from the filer of the AfD, so the admin, being involved, asks for help, and is roundly ignored as ANI is diverted successfully into a discussion of the merits of the AfD, meanwhile editors start voting in it, so it can't be closed, and it becomes a huge battle. In the end, the filer was identified as a sock puppet of a long-term abusive deletionist. All that was needed, ordinarily, was an administrator to look at the situation, there is never any reason not to "send" one. So: request is filed, naming involved parties and providing evidence. No debate. Admin responds, taking the case, and opens page or talk section for discussion, but may issue "preliminary injunctions," i.e., temporary page or topic bans, page protection, or temporary blocks. The admin ultimately rules on the discussion, having notified parties that might be affected, etc. The admin can control the discussion, it is all for advice to that admin. Later, if there is disagreement, there is then ordinary WP:DR for it.)

With the 911 call, the police are requested, and one or more officers are sent. Period. No delay. And no debate. The police are trusted to make an ad-hoc, temporary decision, for the protection of public safety and order. They don't make long-term decisions, that's reserved for the courts. In our system, short of ArbComm, long-term decisions should be reserved for community decisions based on a RfC, where deliberative process is followed and all the evidence is in for review before decisions are proposed and !voted on. Which, in theory, if very broad consensus isn't found at RfC, would be at AN -- not ANI -- or possibly another forum. EfB? Editors for Ban, like AfD and subject to similar process?) --Abd (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the specific case, my opinion is that ArbComm needs, in general, to narrow the focus of their cases. Basically two simple cases can become one complicated one. Or one simple and one complicated, combined, can result in taking months to make a simple decision on the first. I tried to move for that in RfAr/Abd and JzG, and this was strongly opposed as an attempt to avoid scrutiny of my behavior, but ArbComm really didn't consider, much, my behavior in the end, so all the comments about my behavior ended up with nothing more than some obvious advice being given to me. A narrower focus, enforced through clerks under ArbComm supervision, would have resulted in less disruption. Then an RfC could have been filed on my behavior, and then taken to ArbComm as a separate case, if necessary, and an already developed one. The function of RfC to collect evidence and arguments prior to an ArbComm filing has been overlooked. ArbComm would then, essentially, be reviewing the RfC and making a decision where the community was divided, or an editor was apparently refusing to listen to community advice. Named parties in RfAr cases should be individuals who are either complainants, whose behavior should always be subject to review, practically automatically, but only with respect to the filing of the case and what's directly related to that, or "defendants," who might be subject to sanction, or otherwise directly involved parties, not merely those who have issued an isolated opinion. Those could be listed as possible "Interested parties," who might be notified. To fully describe it in advance would require much more than this brief post, but ArbComm can and should review its own process to make it more efficient. We can advise, but, absolutely, we should not control. Sovereignty over their own process is a fundamental, common-law right of deliberative bodies.

ArbComm cases should not be allowed to become coat-racks for complaints about editors, but should remain focused on the specifics alleged in the filing, and evidence and arguments related to those specifics, and ArbComm should proceed outside those specifics only with great care; in doing this, they would be following centuries of legal experience, and I won't explain all the reasons for it. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hey Jehoch. I just wanted to let you know that I'm happy that the dispute over the Boothyrod article is over. I wasn't happy with the outcome and my concerns were substantial over how the matter was handled, but I probably expressed myself overly strongly at times. I have very deep respect for your work here and will always hold you in high esteem for the temperance you showed an editor in trouble. While I still disagree with you over various issues, I apologize for being overly aggressive towards you in my comments. Take care. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! I have no issues with you at all. Occasional disagreements are part of editing. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For helping to solve a hard issue at WP:AE by insisting that the lazy solution of "no action" was not enough. Offliner (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unwanted Visitor

Reluctantly I wish to inform you that Abstract has edited the User talk:Alastair Haines page contrary to common sense. Weather the recent edit is of any value or justification is of no importance. He has violated the No Trespassing sign and has acted contrary to administrative instructions. FWIW, I hold Editor:SlimVirgin in esteem, if not for her stand, at least for her conviction. But she is notorious...in a good way. Even if Abtract had no restrictions placed on him (in regard to Editor:Haines) his editing of anothers talk page is uncivil. If nothing else, please make note of it for future reference.--Buster7 (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the edit was unwise. If you'd like me or another administrator to do something about it, you could file a request at WP:AE. We need to have a link to the case and the sanction violated. I think I know which one, but would like to make sure any enforcement is done upon a request made in a public place. My talk page is sort of a wiki backwater. Jehochman ^Talk 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. It wasn't my garden he stepped in. I doubt much can be done to convince a change of mind. Some things are what they are. Anyway, maybe Alastair won't even notice when he returns. --Buster7 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw what you said

I saw your [recent edit] over at arbitration and I want you to know that I too have been keeping a Very close eye on you and your activities here on wikipedia and that I intend to continue doing so.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments to other editors have been rather caustic. It is your own actions that cause people to question whether they should trust you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

9/11 talkpages

Hi, since you seem to be one of the more active admins in enforcing 9/11 sanctions lately, I'm wondering if you could have a look at Talk:September_11_attacks. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning, but it seems that Irish nationalists have descended onto the article and are arguing about the use of the word "terrorist" in relation to al-Qaeda. The page has devolved into shouting and revert-warring. I'll take it to RFPP if you're (understandably) unwilling to step in. Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an involved editors. Sometimes I report problems when I see them, but I don't administrate in this area. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistreatment of 194x?

I'll let him speak for himself at the case, but FYI, he was reverted as an IP by several different users for talk-page posting his opinion on DreamHost the company instead of DreamHost the article. He then started removing other people's comments in return. After I semi-ed the page to stop that behavior, he registered his current account, and has been editing more-constructively since then.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance we can de-escalate the conflict by having an administrator step in who has no history with 194? Jehochman ^Talk 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The conflict with 194x, certainly. However, Judas278 has never edited on a topic other than DreamHost, so I doubt he'll accept anything short of his preferred version of the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)