User talk:Jehochman/Archive 12

discussing anonymously

Moved from WP:VPP#Clarification, click show to expand full discussion

Compacted discussion

The editor behind this IP account should declare whether they have a main account. If so, they should login when participating in policy discussions, per WP:SCRUTINY. I am concerned that we are being trolled. See discussion about where the editor refused to answer whether they have a main account. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer, but you didn't read. While I have one account, I don't have alternate account. Nor do I use the only account that I have. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps. users should note that Jehochman's guideline was just demoted, and users may also note that he promoted another guideline WP:HONESTY without clear WP:CONSENSUS. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling this page. If you have an account, you must login and use it when participating in this discussion. Hiding behind an IP to avoid scrutiny of your main account's activities is not allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting WP:SOCK policy. Please ask some more experienced editor to explain it to you. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling this page. You are going to get yourself blocked, and your main account too. Jehochman ^Talk 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He does, it is Lakinekaki (talk · contribs) and he has been discussed on ANI and elsewhere several times due to his disruptive behaviour and attempts to avoid scrutiny. Verbal chat 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this has been mediated by an arbitrator. User_talk:FayssalF/Archive_AD#My_opinion 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that you've been stalking me. I get it that you don't like me. It is unfair that you keep popping up to annoy me when I am otherwise ignoring you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you came to this thread to annoy me, not the other way around. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! You logged into your main account exactly once since September, to slag me at the ArbCom elections. You then followed my activities and started doing whatever you could to upset my policy work. I was off minding my own business, completely not thinking about you. How about a little candor here. That would be very healthy. You see exactly who I am. I am not shifting IPs all the time in order to pursue old grudges. That is the crux of your problem. You need to stop before you get community banned. I doubt that Fayssalf would be impressed with your behavior here. Feel free to ask him to review it. Meanwhile, I am going to go back to ignoring you. Later. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I logged in because I realized I shouldn't have voted with an IP address when my vote was striked out by another editor. I am not following you around, I am following creation of new policies and guidelines. You have happened to promoted two of those without consensus. I've commented on other policies also, like the WP:Editing_policy for example. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Okay, I have no interest in conflict with you. You are welcome to disagree with me, but it would be much simpler in the future if you just say that you used to have an account but decided to edit as an IP instead. That situation is understandable. Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I even wrote a script to collect editing statistics of most of guidelines [1], and am going to request an INPUT very soon on this very page -- editors input on guidelines with little contributors -- to make those better. I am here to make WP better, not to annoy anyone. ps. i did tell you i use IP only, but you wouldn't listen. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were not understanding each other well enough. I am sorry. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. But please, don't ask users to login in future. Anonymity is a fundamental part of this project. If there is disruption, there are ways to deal with it. Requiring a login is not one of them. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, someone can collapse all these of topic comments, so that issue goes back to high participation in policy/guideline making. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:VPP#few editors imposing a new guideline on community without any discussion

Compacted discussion

Do you have a main accounts, or are you truly an anon? The reason I ask is twofold. First, while anonymous editing is allowed, few anonymous editors are as savvy about policy as you appear to be. Second, per WP:SCRUTINY other editors have a legitimate interest in viewing all your contributions, especially if you are engaging in policy discussions. That policy says In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates... Jehochman ^Talk 09:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know the rationale behind that piece of policy. You can't debate policy anonymously? Why in the hell not? I fail to see how his previous contributions have any bearing on this. So he's savvy about policy, how does knowing his account name change anything? As for scrutiny, he's just calling attention to a discussion that other editors might be interested in. Even if it is sockpuppetry, this case wouldn't constitute any actual harmful use of it, as far as I can see. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:36, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, thought it said anonymous accounts, not sockpuppet accounts. Still doesn't make much sense to me though. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:43, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I wish users would understand and quote WP:SCRUTINY properly. I don't have >>>alternative<<< accounts, therefore, I don't have a single sockpupet account. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a login, or do you always edit as an IP. That's a simple question that deserves a direct answer. Jehochman ^Talk 10:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And policy by which I have to tell you that is... "Jehochman's inquisition"? 212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see Jehochman, sockupupet and checkuser investigations are to be invoked if there is some justification, like disruption of a user(s), and NOT to intimidate the editor who disagrees with you, which is what you are trying to do by invoking "sockpupetry" allegations. Read policies again if you missed that part. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an IP shows up at a policy discussion showing deep knowledge of Wikipedia, it is legitimate to ask if they have a main identity. If you want me to run a Checkuser, I think there is enough evidence to justify one already, but I'd really rather that you just took the point to heart and did not use an alternate account for editing policy. To answer your question, In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates... (See WP:SCRUTINY) Jehochman ^Talk 10:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an administrator, you should understand these important policies better. If you invoke checkuser, I am afraid I will have to request the revocation of your 'misused' admin privileges. ... it is legitimate to ask... I don't think it is legitimate to ask[2], and neither do founders of this project. Let me repeat if you missed to read, I don't have an alternate account. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing your ability to edit anonymously. I am disputing your ability to use a named account and an IP account in order to split your contribution history. Furthermore, I am not acting as an administrator at all. Anybody can ask the questions I have asked, and anybody can request a checkuser. Look, I am not out to embarrass you. The disagreement beween us is resolved. The guideline you disputed is currently marked as a proposal and it is being discussed as you requested. What more do you want? What I want is for you to please use your main account going forward, if you have one, whenever you participate in internal discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 10:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..to use a named account and an IP account in order to split your contribution history.. I am NOT doing that. In any case, if you have SPI suspicions, than you probably suspect at specific account, and by comparing contribution histories of IP(s) and account, you can see that both are not used, and therefore there is not justified reason for SPI or Checkuser.

..What I want is for you to please use your main account.. You said it correctly. What YOU want. You see, it also counts what I want, and that is to edit without loging in. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not allowed when you are participating in policy discussions. I have better things to do than try to guess your main identity. You've been suitably warned. If some other administrator decides to block your IP, my conscience is clear. Hopefully you'll take my advice. Happy editing. Jehochman ^Talk 10:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are given for disruption, sockpupetry, etc... None of those is occurring. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Guys, seriously, getting a tad off topic here. It would be best to answer the question or move to a more appropriate venue for sockpuppeteering (not that I'm saying that is what is occuring) like WP:SPI or the IP's talk page. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 10:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

[3] - Could you look into this? Seems this is turning into a chronic longer term issue - may want to adopt some sort of practices regarding this IP/user/individual whatever. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again - apparently switching IPs... Cirt (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think these two are socks of Qwerty612 (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems plausible. If there is a continuation, I can semi-protect the page. Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding scrutiny

I'm wondering about the history behind this situation. This editor is editing using several different IPs. Here are three of them:

This is especially serious because he's editing policy pages. He is definitely attempting to avoid the scrutiny of other editors, and has admitted it on his talk page. Why is this being allowed? -- Fyslee (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fyslee and JEH. If you're making a list of this guy's recent IPs, here is mine:

212.200.240.194 (talk · contribs)

212.200.240.232 (talk · contribs)

212.200.240.241 (talk · contribs)

212.200.243.165 (talk · contribs)

212.200.243.174 (talk · contribs)

216.80.119.92 (talk · contribs)

I have no objection if anyone wants to file it at WP:SPI. The editor announced on the user page of his named account that he would only work with IPs from now on, so this is not precisely deceptive, it is just scrutiny-avoiding, and the T-word may apply. (He may have been trying to get a reaction out of us). There is a possibility that he is using the internet from a mobile phone supplied by this Serbian company: http://www.mobilnisvet.com/. He could be doing this from the US, since the guy appears to be based in Chicago.

Banning him wouldn't exactly stop him from editing. But it is at least thinkable to block anonymous editing of Wikipedia from this company's phones. Two or three /24 blocks would be a start.

My other idea is to list all the IPs he uses on his named user page, and full-protect the user page. He would still be allowed to edit. Such novel ideas are not always supported, but it could work. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to WP:SPI so that a checkuser can look at the possibility of collateral damage and then place range blocks. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser election

Hello, Jehochman, how come you do not come for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009? There are many candidates who do not even enough experiences in SSP/RFCU cases unlike you. I admit that I have not fully read the "new policy" on the election, and nomination, but I think you are really qualified candidate. Is it too late for you running for the election? --Caspian blue 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have become very busy in real life. The most I can do is pop in daily to keep moving a few articles forward and occasionally respond to requests for help directed to me. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CyberLink

In my view, there should be an article about CyberLink, because they have got a sizable share of multimedia software market. I just created a really short stub, but I noticed you previously deleted CyberLink Corp. due to blatant advertising. If you have time, could you please take another look, may be there was something valuable there. --WeLoveSnakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeLoveSnakes (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It was deleted. --WeLoveSnakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeLoveSnakes (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR on Prem Rawat

Hi, the Prem Rawat issues at AE have moved to RFAR. Bainer suggested inviting the uninvolved admins to comment. The thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat_2; your input is welcome. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was typing my statement as you posted here. Check the date stamps. Looks like quantum entanglement. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Figured as much from the time stamps. Great minds think alike? Durova^Charge! 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Serp.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Typical-serp.png

Hi, since you're an administrator I thought it might be quicker to point this out to you directly. The above file is a fairly poor candidate for the purpose that it's being used for. It depicts a US-centric, politically partisan and recentist search query. It's not clear to me if you realise this, since you've been involved in the image discussion before the event, but it also shows the Wikipedia entry at the time when Google had picked up a vandalised version of the Obama article. Since the image isn't being used for educational commentary about this incident, it's on shaky ground with respect to neutrality and libel, and doesn't represent a typical search result anyway. Would you consider self deleting and using a different search? Maybe "mercury" would make a good neutral and diverse search. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what image I choose, somebody is bound to object. If you have a problem with article content, take it to the article talk page. My talk page is not the correct venue for discussions about article content. I am completely fed up of users complaining to me as if this image is my responsibility to fix. Anybody can step in and upload a better version. Just start a discussion if you have any doubts. Jehochman ^Talk 04:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not article content, it's a shaky application of fair use provisions. But if that's as civil a response as I'm going to get, I'll try to make time to produce an improved replacement at some point and take it the usual way through FFD. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever written a good or featured article? Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit Wikipedia for recognition, nor do I believe particularly in the short-term value of localised incidences of high quality, and if I did I'm not sure how that would be relevant to this image. If it's supposed to be the set-up of an ad hominem attack, save your breath. The image, given an easily produced alternative, will not survive FFD. I made a friendly suggestion to skip the need for lengthy discussion in the spirit of cheerfully making improvements to the encyclopedia, but I appreciate that there's no Wikipedia policy requiring even administrators to respond positively to such suggestions. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating discussions that were had before. I am sure you are not aware of that, but I would like to share with you the circumstances as to why I am so frustrated. It takes a lot of effort to write a good or featured article. There are vastly too many editors who ramble around, not knowing or caring how much effort has gone into an article, and they seek to enforce rules for the sale of enforcing them, not because they make Wikipedia better. Instead of playing cop, why don't you suggest ways to improve the article? I have said many times that anybody can replace the image with one that is more informative. Finding a more informative SERP, making a screen shot, and uploading it takes a bit of work. It's not as fun as drive-by tagging huge numbers of images for deletions, as some (maybe not you) seem to like to do. What is the "easily produced alternative". Show me and I will help you upload it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/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/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a word

A chara, could you possibly have a word here to calm things down. I’ve told Dunc, I’ll not be rising to these taunts and accusations. Besides they will just keep going if we encourage them. I'll do what I normally do, and that’s edit articles. I have ignored being called a liar twice in recent days. The first time I tried to be reasonable and the second time I just ignored it and moved on. I did not report it or the double standards since I was once blocked for less before, because hey what’s the point. Even the accusation of tag teaming did not faze me, despite being warned about this and given final warnings because I don't see the point! This here was just to wind up the editor and it worked. Why feed into it, ignore it and they go away. The reason I ask is you handeled these [4] [5] with little fuss or drama so you know some of the background. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also add that you go back to the very first couple of posts I made, and subsequent passive aggressiveness and bullying I met with (With Big Dunc, not Domer) I lashed out at Big Dunc in my last post, but considering the way he's been behaving it should be no surprise. If you take the piss expect to get a box is what I say. Now, i understand i will get blocked for a period of time, i'm ready for that, but please consider the root of this whole mess, and look with very critical eyes at Domer's 'rendition' of the events. NewIreland2009 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally block people for potty talk. Why don't you just stop the provocations? Claiming the other side engaged in provocation is not an excuse for your behavior. Your talk of a short block underestimates the seriousness of this situation. When somebody is a perpetual source of disruption, it is my style to block them indefinitely. Don't test me; I am good to my word. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that a chara, that should be the end of the matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken that on board. Bear in mind my posts were in opposition to the censorship attempted - if my posts are allowed to remain then that most certainly is the end of the matter. NewIreland2009 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NewIreland2009 I think Jehochman is being very reasonable here so don't push it. Accusations of censorship will not do you any favours, and your personal attack on editors should be removed, likewise the one here. They do not attempt to improve the articles only provide a platform from which to mount attacks. Please read WP:TPG, remove the section and move on from this. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My post was not a personal attack, though I do admit I have made personal attacks since then, after heavy provocation and passive aggression and general mean behaviour. I was merely saying that 60 + references for that article is absurd (Do you reject that?) and that certain users are guarding articles on wikipedia (Which is very clear to all users on wikipedia, thats why there are watchlists - its not necessarily a bad thing, just depends on the motives of the individuals involved.) So no personal attack there, unless you perceived there to be one. Frankly, if attempts hadn't been made to cover up a perfectly legitimate post then nothing would have come from all of this. Just let the matter drop and the leave the post where it is - it clearly doesn't violate wikipedia guidelines and no-one has provided a valid reason for it being removed other than 'I don't like it' or 'per Rule Number 109000893333213'. I'm willing to let it drop but am not willing to remove it. Only yourself and Big Dunc seem to think it should be removed, and frankly, neither of you have the authority to make that decision.

Now please, CAN THIS BE THE LAST POST ON THE MATTER!? NewIreland2009 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTWORD. Jehochman ^Talk 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

Thanks, it's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Contrivance, BLP, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indents and Apologies

Apologies - of course I was not addressing your good self! Pedro : Chat 21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles. Pcarbonn is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed. Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazi moff 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donations and RFAR

Maybe $50 for whoever can find the RFAR with the largest number of separate statements and the largest by pure size? The adminbot one was fairly large, but I'm sure some others have been larger. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closures at WP:AE

Hi Jehochman, with all due respect I disagree with your recent closures at WP:AE and I have request a second pair of eyes to look at them. My comments are here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved. You are gaming the system. Please stop. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked for an uninvolved admin, I meant another uninvolved admin. Please step back and allow another admin to review the situation. Handing out blocks for questioning your judgement is inappropriate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking any admin who criticizes your behavior, and then claiming that they are involved is called gaming the system. Please stop. Keep the conversation in one place. Don't spread this dispute to multiple pages in an effort to create as much disruption as possible. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! Jehochman, I just happened on this. I think you made a mistake. Blocking or topic banning someone who questions your judgment, in a manner that clearly indicates the block or ban is proceeding from the questioning rather than from other causes, is admin action while involved. (There is a technical issue that you haven't used privileged tools, but I don't suggest standing on that technicality, I think that Elonka nearly got creamed over that one.) I have no axe to grind here. If Pocopocopocopoco should be blocked or banned -- and it may be fortunate that I don't have an admin bit because I'd be tempted just because of the name -- then, as Risker pointed out with respect to another admin acting while involved, there are hundreds of other administrators to do the job. Please back off. If you think Pocopocopocopoco is being disruptive in questioning your decisions, then do what I'd do: go to AN/I and ask for administrative support. Maybe s/he is disruptive, maybe not, my comment here makes no presumption about that.

The issue you raise, "attacking any admin who criticizes your behavior, and then claiming that they are involved," has been specifically addressed by ArbComm, in the matter of Tango, which resulted in his resignation as an admin under a cloud. It is expected, to a degree, that users will "attack" an admin who criticizes and especially who blocks or otherwise hinders the editor. What is prohibited is action, by the allegedly attacked admin, arising as a consequence of the "attack," not as a result of ignoring warnings, etc. In other words, suppose you are a police officer. You say to a person, "Stop or I'll shoot!" The person says "Go to hell, you fucking idiot!" Shooting the person for saying that would be assault and certainly not a justified use of the weapon. But if the person doesn't stop, then you could shoot. (Assuming that this was, in itself, legitimate.) I'd say, looking at the page cited above, that you have acted while involved, blatantly. You may get away with it, you know how Wikipedia works, but I don't recommend counting on that. Just let go, and if you really think something needs to be done, ask at AN/I or follow other process like an ordinary editor. And none of this has any impact at all on your original decisions. They stand, the claim of involvement is not immediately relevant. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2009

GROND

Hey there. I'm the one getting the GROND stuff sorted out. The See Also thing is slightly complicated to explain. I've been working it out with the ME project: see project talk. As you can see, it's slightly more complicated than a simple disambiguation.

I'm working on getting a source on the name of the instrument actually being a reference to Tolkien. I put it in the See Also as a temporary thing, to be fixed when the article is no longer a stub. But for now, as I said on the ME project talk, Greiner's page at MPE does seem to implicitly suggest that it is indeed a reference.

My plan was to try a little bit more for a source. If I fail, I was going to put it in a "other uses"; otherwise, I was going to put it into the body of the article. demonburrito (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could add a disambiguation link. For the fictional battering ram of Tolkien's Middle Earth, see... Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could contact the researcher and ask them to post an explanation, and then reference it. Sometimes you can provoke a fact to appear. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! That was my plan, but I haven't figured out how to go about it. I couldn't easily find an example of an article citing a response from the subject. It sounds like you may have experience doing this sort of thing. Any pointers? demonburrito (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the current version. I put a note in the hatnote, and a reference in the note. It was the hairiest mediawiki markup I've done (nested ref bug); but I think this is viable, for now.

Feel free to move our conversation to the article's talkpage, if you wish. Thanks again. demonburrito (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GROND? I'm speechless. What next? GANDALF? Oh, I see: Gandalf Technologies. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'RLY?

Muhahaha? — Coren ^(talk) 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bring me a brain! Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonal Shah

Could you look into the edits of Eugene Krabs [6][][] that seems to be restoring content deemed a WP:BLP violation by yourself a while back[7]? Thanks. Saudagar (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There are now sources that appear at least somewhat reliable, such as NDTV. At the moment this looks more like a content dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello sir, Im not sure if Im at the right place or not, but Im not so advanced with the procedures in Wikipedia. I assume you being an admin could perhaps show me the procedure on how to file a complaint against User talk:VartanM. He has recently insulted, scandalized and even threatened me.

Insults

Threatening

Is poor little Baku87 scared? They're hiding under your bed, I would stop sleeping at nights if I were you

This is very distrubing especially since I gave out my IP for invesigation here.

Scandalizing

Here he starts a baseless campaign to depict me as a socketpuppet

Dear sir, I find it very uncomfortable to see that User talk:VartanM can just say and do whatever he pleases without any consequences attached to it. I am particular deeply distrubed by his threat and I want him to stop. So could you please tell me where and how to file a complaint regarding this matter. Baku87 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Await results of the checkuser inquiry. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but Im not sure what you mean by that. I dont know were to view the results of the inquiry. But he isnt stopping, this is what he told me yesterday (February 27, 2009)

He gets those too, haven't you seen the maps he imagined in his wet dreams? Wait till he sees the map I just uploaded. He's definitely going to need diapers after that

And here is what he said today (February 28, 2009)

In short nationalist wet dreams of Baku87

Im a very patient person, I even told VartanM about his language and he chose to remove my post and just ignore me, see here and again here. Yet he continues on, I dont understand how he can proceed with this, enough is enough wouldnt you agree? Baku87 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Keith Henson

Thank you. This was most certainly warranted and the appropriate action to take. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support your action, Jehochman, of semiprotecting the article. The private page, ostensibly of the daughter, shouldn't be linked unless it has notable mention, in which case that mention would be what would be linked. The question of court documents is a little tougher. Are court documents RS? They are as to allegations; court documents show that an allegation was made by a specific named person. That's not OR. But it would be correct that facts are not established by filings, only by court decisions (arguably). But the entire topic is hot, and sensitive. How notable is it? If there is RS, that would determine it, but even then it would have to be handled very carefully.

Disclosure: I knew Keith Henson and his wife, Carolyn Meinel, quite well, I worked closely with both of them, in the late 1970s, and I have some vague memory of the daughters. I'll say this much about the daughter's testimony: it rings true, with respect to details from that time, such as the tunnels under the house, i.e., this is from someone who knew the context well; and I believe that the daughter is well-known, the document is unlikely to be a forgery. As to the alleged molestation, and mention of it in the article, that is quite another thing. I'd say we stick close to policy on BLP and RS. --Abd (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:White_Adept and Arb.com rulings

Hi Jehochman,

I had spent several hours writing this case to present the facts appropriately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings

I am disppointed that the case was closed with in a day even before I could reply to your questions and present the facts.

I have added a discussion here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings

Right now there are 2 major issues.

1) One is the User:White_Adept related problems which I have discussed in detail in the above discussion.

2) Second problem is more serious:

The original template of the article which has been maintained for all these years has been replaced by User:White_Adept's new POV template.
He has replaced almost every line of this original template with his 300+ edits in 15 days.
The original template of the article maintained till Jan 7th 2009 is lost for ever.

Can something be done about this?

Can the original template of the article be restored so that we don't lose years of efforts / work done on the article?

Please let us know. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All prior versions of the article are available in the history. You can have a discussion at the article talk page, and if there is agreement, you can revert the article to any prior version that is better than the current version. No work has been lost. If you cannot get agreement on the talk page, then you can conduct a content requests for comment to get input from uninvolved editors. Follow these procedures and you will get the results you seek. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate all your help. I have another question. I have seen that some users add banned material or add back poor negative material which were removed from the article coming from different ip addresses. These POV edit warriors keep edit warring from different IP's. How to handle such situations. There is no Admin involved related to this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a list of some of these IPs? I will check them. It could be the same person, or a group of related people, trying to avoid scrutiny. This is not allowed, and we have tools to deter this sort of behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one such example. When I removed the banned Priddy references from the article it was added right back into the article from this ip address: 218.248.69.22. I removed it again and later User:White_Adept added it back to the article.

I looked at the history from January 2009 there has been so many changes to the article so I am not able to exactly pin point the problematic ip's. I am going to keep a watch and when ever I see such suspicious behaviour I will report it to you. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Callback_verification

On Talk:Callback_verification, your name was suggested as someone who could either review the article as an editor, or suggest someone who might be able to help out. If you have time to do either, I would appreciate it. Thanks Wrs1864 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/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/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on Report format

Jehochman in response to your comments here I’ve reformatted my report and want to know dose it conform to the correct standards for future reference? I’ve no intension of re-filing it, as it has already been acted upon and the editor cautioned about 1RR as I requested.

Just one other point I’d like to draw your attention too, in your comments you seem to have the situation reversed, “The initial report fails, and looks to me like the continuance of a content dispute on the WP:AE page.” The report on AE actually came first, and because of the assumption of bad faith and accusations I report it on ANI so no gaming there either. Straight forward report turned into a drama. Thanks,

I advised Colin4C on their talk page here at 10:47, 28 February 2009 that the Great Famine (Ireland) was subject to WP:1RR outlined on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles in the section titled Final remedies for AE case which state “All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.”

The two reverts are:

1st Revert at 07:57, 28 February 2009.
2nd Revert at 22:16, 28 February 2009.

The edits also go against an agreed consensus on the talk page which resulted in this chronological article and is linked to the Great Famine (Ireland) article, the result from a discussion here started by Hohenloh, with advice offered here by Angusmclellan. It was acted upon here by Rockpocket, who answered questions on it here during a discussion on it here with Colin4C.

The above looks much better and is more likely to get the sort of respond you'd want. Try to follow that in the future. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Jehochman. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Baba – CU?

Further to the recent AE thread, see –

[8] – White adept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have a point.
Also note [9], Dilip_rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), even though – if it is the same person – it may not qualify as abusive socking at present. Jayen 466 11:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8 complaint you closed

You were way to fast to close Middle 8's complaint and you attempted to punish him rather than consider the charge.

ScienceApologist was instrumental in having MartinPhi purmently banned because Martin talked about what was/is common knowledge about SA. See [10] In fact, SA has pissed so many people off and has been such a braggart about his qualifications that his name is plastered around the Internet and it is unrealistic to call who he is a secret. Yet here he is doing virtually the same MartinPhi was punished for with Middle 8.

I insist that SA be given the same treatment given to MartinPhi and be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Before you all start accusing me of one of your acronyms rules, it is time to take a rational look at his record. If there is not some degree of parity, then it is time to begin discussing the ethical implication about how Wikipedia treats editors. Tom Butler (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SA just came out of arbitration. If you think the community should override what ArbCom said, take it to WP:ANI. As for Middle 8, they filed the thread in retaliation for an earlier thread started by SA. That is obvious. WP:AE is for the enforcement of arbcom sanctions, not for continuing past battles, nor for dispute resolution. Those threads were not heading toward enforcement of any sanction, so I closed them all. It was the correct and necessary action to keep the board functioning. Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Jehochman's action was both measured, reasonable and effective. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman - as we know, SA didn't just start a WP:POINT-y thread about me[11]; he started two others within the same day or so about another editor[12][13]. So your "retaliation" argument only flies so far. Sure I was upset about the quasi-outing attempt directed at me, but I was more upset about SA's continuing WP:POINT-ish rampaging, which is just more of the same behavior that got him topic-banned.

You seem to feel that since SA has been through arbitration, it's best to handle him gently. I feel that his continued misconduct warrants turning the screws even tighter. Reasonable people can disagree on that, I suppose. Well, I guess your position can be reasonable; it's "obvious" to you that I have ulterior, retaliatory motives. So it goes. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted him indef blocked. Then he went to mentorship and calmed down. That was a good 2nd choice. Now ArbCom placed this topic ban, which has gotten him upset--a bad result. Either we let him calm down, or he is going to get sitebanned. I don't so much like sitebans, so let's try to avoid that by being kind, and turning the other cheek. Thank you very much. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your initial instincts were correct. To the extent he ever calmed down, his behavior merely receded to "mildly atrocious" instead of "record-settingly abysmal". And I'm a big fan of site bans, in rare cases, as here. I'm not going to continue to turn the cheek if the other party is doing a fish-slapping dance on me, and especially not if they're also slapping others. In that case, I'm more inclined to whip out the big fish. Which is why I posted to WP:AE -- not out of spite, but to stop increasingly bad behavior.

What I've learned is that if I'm slimed, I shouldn't complain, even if it's in the realm of WP:OUTING, which is supposed to be sacred. Tom's point about double-standards is right on. Martinphi gets banned for nearly-outing SA; SA does the same to me and I get warned for complaining about it. Under the standards you have for SA, I guess I get a free pass to go on a WP:POINT rampage, right? Just out of compassion, since I have reason to be upset? Come on, that's absurd reasoning. You usually do a good job, but you really screwed this one up.

I really think you're coddling SA here, and thereby hurting WP. We're not talking about pepper-spraying him, just banning him from an internet site. With regard to your comment above about the community overriding ArbCom, Tom wasn't asking for that -- what he, and I and others, were asking for is for WP:AE to enforce ArbCom's ruling that said further misbehavior from SA would be sanctioned. But you're on record as saying you won't do so because you don't agree with it.[14] What to do?

So we have fundamentally differing values about certain aspects of WP. But you may be right about SA, and I'm not going to hold any grudges here -- not just generally, but specifically, because I think you're probably in the top 5-10% in terms of positive influences on WP, notwithstanding this episode. I'm also refusing to stay hot about this because I choose not to treat WP as a battleground. When SA stops doing so, I'll be convinced you were right, and WP will be a much saner place, too. Forward. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin was not banned for his egregious violations of WP:OUTING. He was banned for, and I quote "using Wikipedia as a vehicle to further your personal conflict with ScienceApologist." Perhaps both you and SA should take his banning to heart, and not use Wikipedia to further your personal conflicts. Just a thought. Finally, WP:OUTING does not prohibit someone from stating that you derive your income from acupuncture. It would prevent me from identifying you as "John Doe, Chief Lead Acupuncture Advocate of Acme Corporation." We went over this once before - your industry affiliations are not protected, your job title and firm are protected. Please acknowledge that you've read this this time around. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, Hipo, you (like Jehochman) are a strongly constructive presence on WP. I'm sorry if anything I've said, or the way I've said it, has annoyed you; it seems that perhaps something has. I hope that when we disagree, we're able to do so amicably. That is all I ask from SA as well, and I think that if he's consistently unable to do so (with editors in general, not just me), he ought to be shown the door. He's been at his M.O. -- trying to improve content while actively being a dick -- for years, which from the community's viewpoint invokes the famous definition of insanity ("doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results").

Would you mind backing off the discussion of what you think my IRL career is or isn't? I've been very clear on my user page about that. I don't mind discussing that and other aspects of my personal life off-wiki, but it would be really nice if editors could respect this simple request. User:Tznkai's comments about banning Martinphi are very clear that Martin's quasi-outing comments about SA played a considerable role in the decision to ban. Tznkai says: "what Martinphi did may or may not be acceptable by the letter and even the spirit of the personal information policy. However, on face it is on its own a violation of acceptable Wikipedia norms." I haven't seen the diff of what Martinphi actually said, but I completely agree with the thrust of Tznkai's remarks: irrespective of the letter of WP:OUTING, there is a spirit there that should be respected. Yes, I understand the distinction you are drawing with regard to the letter of the law. I assume you understand my view as well. We can agree to disagree, but I hope you'll at least respect my own preferences, whether or not you think SA's comments about me came within an inch or a mile or a thousand miles of WP:OUTING.

I have absolutely no desire to fulminate conflict with SA or anyone else. I also reject utterly the notion that my conduct has been anywhere in the same league as SA's in terms of incivility and WP:POINT. Just look at the recent events on WP:AE. SA made a series of complaints there that Jehochman and others quickly recognized as bogus. One of them was made against me. Leaving aside the question of whether SA violated or came close to violating WP:OUTING, it's very hard to deny that his POINT violations were precisely the kind of things that ArbCom identified as problematic and banned him for. It is possible that my decision to file a complaint about his WP:POINT violations was technically right but strategically/morally wrong, but it is very hard to argue that my complaint was frivolous in the way that SA's were. Do you think that is a fair summary?

I'm happy to move on, but it seemed like we needed to clear some stuff up. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all be calm. Given time and space the situation may get better. I am the wrong admin to sanction SA. I won't do it. Somebody else can if there is a great need. My purpose at the moment is to keep WP:AE from turning into a conflagration. If matters are not resolvable there, WP:ANI and WP:RFAR are available. WP:OUTING is outside the remit of the topic ban. It could be dealt with directly. That said, I don't think there was sanctionable outing in this particular case. Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the standpoint of stopping the conflagration, I agree you did just about exactly the right thing. The only caveat that comes to mind is the obvious one: avoiding conflagrations is not the primary purpose of that forum. Completely with you on the big picture, though. best, Middle 8 (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clear up something here: MartinPhi twice outed another user during the ANI discussion about his editing, which surely contributed to his ban. Verbal chat 08:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Verbal; I replied [15] over on my talk page. best, Middle 8 (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your views

...are welcome at WT:RFA#Badgers and bullies and pricks, oh my! (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Apologist toe across the line

From several incidents now, there is a pattern: SA edits article covered by topic ban to fix spelling error. [16] [17]. User:Hipocrite reports it to AE noticeboard. This user considers the topic ban ridiculous. In the case of Cold fusion, Hipocrite reverted the edit, thus restoring a spelling error. The CF report was quickly closed as being a tempest in a teapot (all this about a spelling error?) but, actually, there is violation of WP:POINT there, most prominently by Hipocrite, but it now appears also by User:ScienceApologist, who may be looking for spelling errors to correct in order to thumb his nose at the community and at ArbComm.

Topic bans are an alternative to blocks. There are several paths at this fork:

Tolerate the spelling corrections and other minor, non-controversial fixes.
- Arguably these edits improve the project, therefore SA should not be prevented from making them.
- Problem: it makes AE more complicated. In order to determine if SA is violating the ban, it becomes necessary to look at each edit.
- Problem: This is creating disruption, fomented by Hipocrite, but with SA clearly participating and declaring his intention to ignore all rules, which is provocative. He is following one principle (improve the project) while ignoring others (the needs of the community, of ArbComm, and of admins enforcing ArbComm sanctions, and all of these, as well, relate to the improvement of the project).
Warn him about the ban and block him for technical violations. Short blocks, that note that the edits were not in themselves wrong, but that he is disrupting Wikipedia process, possibly to make a point.
Require him to revert himself with any such technical violation, with a request that any editor restore the edit. This would be minimal work for him, and, in fact, this procedure could, if it does not become disruptive, allow him to make substantive edits. If he uses it to bypass the intent of the ban, by making controversial "proposed edits" which should have been proposed on Talk anyway, that could then be dealt with as a substantive violation of the ban.

I think it's obvious which of these is my preference. The third option is one which almost completely accepts the IAR argument he is making, at face value, though it could be argued that what is really going on here is provocative edits, which do not benefit the project, quite the contrary. Had SA simply made a few spelling corrections, I doubt we would have seen any AE discussion. But SA is cooperating with Hipocrite to make this into a disruption. He could have asked Hipocrite to stop! --Abd (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask SA, myself, to do this, but I'm involved with Cold fusion, which makes me indirectly involved with SA, and I'm not doing this to try to get SA more thoroughly banned or blocked, I'd much rather see someone who is friendly to SA, and who will be seen that way, be the one to let him know. Actually, come to think of it, I should ping Durova. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this posted here? It almost seems like trolling. Fixing spelling "arguably" improves the encyclopedia? If SA is limited to fixing spelling errors in fringe science articles that seems a great outcome. Furthermore, I'm perplexed by the implication that it is SAs job to tell Hipocrite to stop wasting everyone's time with frivolous reports. Especially when reasonable reports made by SA elicit accusations of bad faith and pointiness. The rules don't just apply to SA. And finally, Just because SA chooses to stick his toes in the water, doesn't mean you or Hipocrite need to bend over to see if you can smell his feet. I'm quite sure if he violates his restraining orders in a meaningful way a flurry and fury of accusations and reports will ensue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm utterly disappointed in your actions with regards to this. SA's edits are undoubtedly violations of his topic ban, and are intended to provoke drama in an area that already has way too much drama as it is (two lengthy ArbCom cases, the last of which just closed ten days ago?). Your statement that "Blocks don't work with SA, so we should let him get away with small crossings of the line with regards to his ban" (paraphrasing here) is really incomprehensible here. Rather then fighting the fire, which you are SUPPOSED to do as an AE admin, you instead let it burn out of control and washed your hands of it. Your actions were dubious and not well-thought out at all. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fozzie, don't take the bait. When somebody provokes with an intention of causing drama, you need to do the exact opposite: ignore them. If SA keeps pushing over the line, soon he will develop a pattern of evidence strong enough to justify stronger sanctions. Given his block log, we either have to ban him completely, or let him continue. A 12 hour block is utterly meaningless at this point. We tried that repeatedly and it has failed. Make it 12 months or nothing at all. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If spelling corrections cause drama the problem isn't the person making the corrections. Have people been scarred by bad experiences with a spell checker? The only drama so far has been that created by those who choose to react to insignificance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's not spelling corrections that are at issue here; I also have no problem with those. No spelling error appears in the edit in question [18] The edit was trivial and pointless, and SA has edit-warred on that particular section of that page for perhaps years now. Seems like quite a bait-edit. And really, Jehochman, I appreciate you sticking your head out on principle to oppose ScienceApologist earlier, but the baiting accusations to the other side are really unwarranted here. If anyone is baiting here, it's SA -- he started, what, 3 AE notices, even though he was clearly in the wrong in all of them? II | (t - c) 23:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there were reports made about spelling corrections. The edit you cite is to an article on a plant. Not a fringe topic. Not a bad edit. So it seems to me in this case that SA is not the one looking for trouble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Are we looking at the same edit? The edit is on homeopathy, and it adds nothing important. If SA wants to get into botany, more power to him, but homeopathy is homeopathy. By the way, the debate has gone on for over a year; beginning, perhaps, around Jan. 2008 when SA removed the reference to homeopathy [19]. And really, it's just not worth the fuss. Atropa belladonna is a bit of a notable homeopathic mixture, and thus it's been subjected to a few PubMed-indexed clinical trials. II | (t - c) 04:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

II, assume good faith. I fully meant that SA was doing the baiting. He wants to provoke drama. The rest of you should frustrate him by ignoring these attention-seeking behaviors. Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I don't think it is helpful nor an assumption of good faith to continually characterize me (and others) as antagonizers of ScienceApologist. Speaking for myself, I am rather someone who ScienceApologist chooses to antagonize frequently. Typically, I ignore the "attention-seeking behaviors". Unfortunately, when editors keep repeating something about another editor, the community tends to believe it - even if it is not true. For instance, to this day, the community still thinks I am a chiropractor. I am not. The community thinks I earn a living in the alternative medicine world. I do not. The community thinks I believe in pseudosciences. Quite the opposite, I am a scientific skeptic. One of the differences between editors such as ScienceApologist and myself (aside from his embarrasing, childish behavior) is that I recognize that Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge, not of truths. Pseudoscience, while not a truth, is knowledge. What I am asking from you is to stop spreading all of the innuendo, forget your preconceived notions, and start over by assuming good faith in me. For starters, you may be interested in knowing that you and I share the same profession. Want to know more? Feel free to email me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levine he's topic banned. If he does a significant violation report it. I see a lot of harassment of SA going on over the most minor of insignificant instances. If the worst he does is correct spelling and edit plant articles, he should be left alone. My sympathy for him is growing as I see these inane reports. Whether his reports are made in good faith or not, we have to assume they are, and treat them as legitimate. There is no way to take a complaint of spelling corrections as a legitimate violation. It's silly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't file a complaint about a spelling correction. The opposite, in fact, I restored his actual edit to Cold fusion. However, above CoM argues with "arguably." Yes. Spelling corrections arguably improve the project. Disagree? Why, habit? Okay, why not just say that they improve the project? Because if the editor is topic banned, and is making these edits in substantial numbers, they greatly complicate enforcement of a topic ban. That's not improvement, that's disruption. In other words, a small improvement (a minor spelling correction that will eventually be found anyway) must be balanced against damage (complication to Arbitration enforcement, arguments over what is trivial and what is not, etc., and over technical violations and possible disruptive intent) We have now seen multiple reports at AE in a few days over these edits, and two of them were reported by Hipocrite who claims to be an opponent of the ban, yet is taking it upon himself to enforce it. I've suggested here and on User talk:Durova how SA, if his motive is actually helpful, could avoid technical ban violation and complications to AE enforcement, while avoiding, also, the more cumbersome process of proposing simple spelling corrections on Talk. I give more detail on this at User talk:Durova#ScienceApologist_needs_a_little_guidance.2C_perhaps. (Jehochman, this isn't an invitation to you to reply there!) If he makes a non-controversial edit to an article to which the ban applies (remember, it's to be "broadly construed"), and he declares his intention to revert himself, and especially if he does so promptly, I'd vigorously defend him against charges of ban violation based on that. Yet the result would be, in very short order, the spelling corrections and other noncontroversial changes, with minimal effort, basically just looking at the diff and pressing Undo.

Absolutely, the spelling corrections aren't, in themselves, significant violations of the topic ban. But if they are being made provocatively, they do violate his restrictions, for they would be disruptive and WP:POINT violations. He's been openly and directly defiant on this, stating his intention to continue. If he does, sanctions should be applied. I'm hoping that Durova will nudge him in the right direction. --Abd (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I'm sorry. I'm getting a little too much bad faith recently, and it's beginning to wear on me. Keep up the good work. II | (t - c) 04:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Kendrick7 has been editing with the primary/sole intention of linking years en masse"

I had previously warned Kendrick7 here; there is no doubt that he is aware of the injunction, as he has actively participated in the case and has even brought forth FoFs and proposed principles. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, he has stopped. There is no need for a block. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was just providing the link for easy reference. Should he start again, do I need to start another thread on AN/AE? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. To avoid claims of gaming, be sure to identify the prior threads (links may help) and explain why you think the matter deserves a second look. You'd have to show how something had changed substantially since the prior threads. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your statement on Short Brigade Harvester Boris talk

You stated "If you notice any SPA/POV/Troll type accounts causing trouble in the science, pseudoscience or fringe science articles, please do report them. I believe things will be acted upon much more expediently now," I'd like to bring something to your attention and ask that you suggest how I should proceed.

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive179#Is_this_the_place_to_report_an_admitted_soapbox_editor.3F, [20] and [21] JedRothwell is topic banned from Cold Fusion and it's talk page. He pops up every so often with a long statement about some obscure journal article. His most recent contribution is [22], RBIed here and here, then reinserted with the comment "useful for discussion" User:Abd here, RBIed again [23] by a third user, then taken up by Abd as his own comment here. How can reasonable editors move forward on this page when they (and I say "they" because I have given up on the cold fusion article) have to deal with the same old banned SPA's that were ALREADY dealt with editing through proxies? What should I do to solve this, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Abd states that he is the one soliciting topic banned editor Jed Rothwell to comment - "I did ask Rothwell for his opinion." Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Postscript: removed again here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm involved in this and I happened to notice this while looking at something else. If you could take some action (perhaps warning, explanation, or whatever you feel is right, to any editor) I'd be grateful and feel the talk page would be improved. Verbal chat 21:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please explain

Please explain your totally disproportionate action. My edits have all been reasonable and on one of two main articles I edited (the list) I helped to resolve a dispute which has seemingly lasted for several years.Landed little marsdon (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation is on WP:AE. Have you edited Wikipedia via any other accounts? If so, which ones? Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've been accused of being 4 different people - have you anyone special in mind? And, given that you haven't accepted my previous negative responses to that very question, why would you even ask it, if not to get at one of the justifications for your completely disproportionate action - you take me for someone else. However, I have not edited before under any other name and I therefore request you look at the actual edits I have made and undo your over the top block. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your aren't blocked. You have been asked (under threat of being blocked) to go edit anything, anything other than pseudoscience-related pages. Once you do that successfully for a while, you can come back and ask for this restriction to be lifted. Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are about to block me, but please give me a chance to explain on my talk. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can explain on your talk page. Don't be alarmed. I am very regretful to have to do that, but we really need people to back away from conflicts when we ask them to. Arbitration on Wikipedia is serious business. If you have any inkling the Committee wants you not to do something, don't do it. I suggest you wait a few hours, then post an apology and ask to be unblocked early, rather than arguing over it. Cite my comment here and surely some admin will unblock you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date injunction

Hiya, don't want to copy signatures or anything, so can you log it at WP:ARBDATE (the bottom section)? Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting there. More flame suppressant wikifoam is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Dabomb87

Jehochman, please explain that block. Do I understand that is for one date de-linking? If so, what exact injunction are you referring to? The last I checked, the parties to the ArbCom were enjoined from “mass delinking”, which refers to bot activity or hand-editing to the same effect. What’s new here? Greg L (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back to WP:AE and discuss your concerns there. I am saddened by the tendentiousness of the parties involved in this dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be saddened, but I am aghast at the wrongful reading of the injunction. Mass now means a single article, does it? Are you blocking this person because of your sadness at your perception of "tendentiousness"? Tony (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you see a note above that directs the editor to keep the discussion at WP:AE. This is not at all personal. You folks coming here to pressure me will come to a bad end. Please restrain yourselves before external restraints are required. If you have concerns about arbitration enforcement, take them up on the board, or address the committee yourselves. I will not tolerate badgering from multiple parties every time I try to enforce the rules. Jehochman ^Talk 05:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L and Tony1, take it to AE, any further comment/badgering here will result in a block. Thank you in advance for your understanding in this matter. R. Baley (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just marked it as resolved, but they had opened a post at WP:ANI#Block of Dabomb87 by Jehochman. Since you weren't notified... seicer | talk | contribs 11:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching

Hi there,

I've just listed myself to request admin coaching, and I see that according to the page, you might have a 'free slot', so to speak.

I've had a browse through your page, a few contribs, etc, and I think you'd be a good mentor to me.

So - please let me know if it's a possibility.

Cheers, -- Chzz ► 19:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working at reduced capacity and don't feel that I could dedicate enough time to this. Thank you for reminding me that I am listed. I should unlist myself. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your straight answer. -- Chzz ► 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply at AE

Thanks for explaining the procedure. I'm sorry I moved the discussion to AE without thinking through the implications first. By the way, I replied to your suggestion at AN/I. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

accusations agaisnt ChrisO?

Jehochman,

I didn't accuse Chris of anything... I realize that my comment came off a little different than I intended, but I never accused either editor. What I really wanted to do was get a period where both editors agreed to stay away from the article and others could decide its fate. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppetry accusation

Hi Jehochman. I've been accused of sockpuppetry again, now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kernow. Apparently a user recently mentioned the URL of my website in their sandbox and this has automatically triggered someone to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of that user. As you suggested on my talk page last time, I've mentioned on the SSP and on the talk page of the user who accused me that they can contact you as you are familiar with my situation. Just thought I should let you know I've mentioned your name. Thanks, Kernow (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel and 9/11 Arbcom

FYI. Skinwalker (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEO again

Is the title the main determinant in article rank? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is a big factor, but not the only one. The three largest factors, in no particular order are: title, quantity and quality of links pointing to a page, and anchor text of those links. Note that both internal and external links count. One of the best ways to help a page rank better is to use good anchor text in the menus that appear on every page of a site. Consider a hypothetical site where the menu item "Red Lederhosen" is linked to a page titled "Red Lederhosen". If this page also has a heading "Red Lederhosen" and includes the words red and lederhosen throughout the text at a somewhat natural frequency, this page is likely to rank well for that phrase. Jehochman ^Talk 15:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

I hope you don't mind. I partially reverted your edit at WP:V. I think your edit is generally an improvement, but I re-inserted "postings", and represented the meaning of "and similar sources" with "etc." to leave it open-ended. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your positive response, which made me very happy! By the way, (and here I hope you have lots of talk page watchers) I'm looking for people to join a new pages patrol competition to encourage people to help clear the new pages patrol backlog. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really could use your opinion at Stroke

I don't know much but I do know that other editors have given reasons for reverting this. This editor keeps reverting back to their preferred version without comments as far as I've seen. So I reverted requesting it to be taken to talk. Now, should I self revert? I used the edit summary and not talk so was I wrong? I would appreciate your input on this. I will self revert if you say so since I trust your judgements. Thanks again for your advice and/or help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I don't have to self revert, the editor already did almost immediately but I would still like your opinion on this. Plus this editor has to be way past WP:3RR by now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Hi Jehochman! Thank you for your comments. I made the following points in AE, with supporting diffs:

R. has been previously included in the list of bans in this arbitration case for harassing another user.
He made an uncivil comment about D. approximately a month ago.
He has been officially warned by an uninvolved administrator for misbehavior after that.
He continue making uncivil comments at different pages.

Which point(s) do you disagree with? If this is the last point, I would be happy to provide more diffs with his inappropriate comments made during the last 1-2 months, not mentioning things he did earlier. Sorry for pushing this issue. It would be fine if this only involved me. But this became an issue for others as well.Biophys (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any points, but I wish that your initial diffs did not include those from the user's own talk page. If you stick to article talk pages, your case is stronger. Additionally, I do not think it helps your cause when Digwuren pops in and throws barbs without shedding additional light on the matter. He should read meatball:DefendEachOther. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe you have nothing against Digwuren personally [24]. I observed some of your actions in the past and agree with most of them and especially your support of User:Durova. However, I respectfully disagree with you in this case. If you agree with all my points above, R. should receive at least a warning from you. Plain and simple. But instead you issued a warning to D. who evidently (see first dif in this AE) was a victim of an offensive comment by R. at the first place. Last (most recent) comment by R. was also against WP:CIV. He repeateadly called D. non-person ("nobody"). Thanks.Biophys

Thank you for mediating this issue anyway. No requests for arbitration from my side. I have learned my lesson hard way when submitted a case strongly recommended by Durova (and that was the only case I ever submitted). Even commenting on someone's else case or reporting something at a noticeboard can bring one a lot of trouble in this environment, as I also have learned.Biophys (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re WP:AE

Following a noticeboard comment, I have decided to see if I can help on the above board. I plan to read a lot, then make a few comments and subsequently move toward getting more involved (providing I feel I am able to contribute.) Since you have a high workload, perhaps because of your commitment to the board, I am going to increase it by asking you to keep an eye on me and let me know if I am misunderstanding situations or making inappropriate edits - hopefully in the long run I can then take some of the workload upon myself; and if you do need another opinion on any matter and there does not appear to by any other third party available, please let me know. See you around, I trust. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. In several recent cases I was loathe to place a sanction because participation was so low. If I have to decide something myself, it must be clear. The more thoughtful, uninvolved opinions, the better. Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand your predicament and I do hope more admins step up to the mark and assist in this thankless task, seems writing yards of prose is enough to muddy the waters sufficiently to escape sanction when only one admin appears to be working on this board. In regard to the report I was involved in, could you at least formally caution Russavia on his talk page too. Civility is a core principle. Thanks, Martintg (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

May I ask why you reverted Gurch like a vandal here? Reverting without an edit summary is for reverting your own edits or reverting vandalism. I didn't even examine the edit. I would assume good faith from Gurch because that user is an administrator. -- IRP ☎ 00:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Gurch is not an administrator. And that edit is from last November. Do you not have anything better to do, IRP? Majorly talk 00:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're mistaken. I looked at the blocks Gurch has made and I see that user has made blocks (which only administrators can do) (see this link). The user may have been desysopped. Has Gurch been desysopped? -- IRP ☎ 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since January 2007... consider looking at the admin list next time. Majorly talk 00:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I would assume that Gurch abused administrative tools and had vandalized Wikipedia. Am I right about both? -- IRP ☎ 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you're wrong about both. Majorly talk 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would anybody think that I made a bad faith CFD nomination if I nominated Category:Wikipedia administrators for deletion? I was considering doing so because it is redundant to and not as well-functioning as Special:Listadmins. -- IRP ☎ 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd vote delete because user categories are pointless, but expect it to be kept. Majorly talk 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you start from the beginning. What is the underlying motivation for your inquiry. I don't know why Gurch is no longer an admin. Last fall he merged a bunch of policy pages without consensus. I rolled back the edits because it was the fastest way to clean up a huge mess. I left comments in the relevant places explaining my actions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As an administrator, I can make a judgment to do something in a non-standard way for the good of the project. For many months now, nobody complained. The fact that I seem to have gotten away with it *smile*, proves my decision. We can not know what an editor is thinking for certain. We often cannot know if an edit is malicious, or if it just so misguided or clueless that it looks malicious Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, thank you for the useful information. Majorly, I have nominated Category:Wikipedia administrators for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 29. -- IRP ☎ 02:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Witness Lee article

Greetings,

A single-issue editor with the moniker "Localchurch" has taken it upon himself to push POV editing on articles concerning the local churches and Witness Lee. As this editor is a former church member who left 20+ years ago and is pushing his own version of events, such a, and views Witness Lee as "changing" what the local churches are/were about. This is quite out of line. Even the moniker, "Localchurch," is out of line...the local churches argue that they have no name, and that the "local" word is an adjective; therefore, it should not be capitalized. This is just one small example of many. These articles should reflect what the subjects are about, not what this editor wants them to be about.

If you cannot help, please advise as to whom I should take this to.

Sincerely Robert YoungRyoung122 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a problem with particular edits, you should first go through the normal dispute resolution procedures. You may also request help at the neutral point of view noticeboard if you feel the user is pushing an agenda. I have looked at both articles and removed linkspam. Otherwise, I do not see specifically which edits are a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I have problems with edits and comments like THIS ONE:

My point here is that "the recovery" in Witness Lee's non-theologian-speak refers to two things. First "the recovery" is defined by way of analogy to the recovered Jewish temple which was on much smaller scale than Solomon's temple. So many original Christian truths were lost along the way and are now being "recovered". So "the recovery" refers to the totality of the Christian truths and practices. So in an encyclopedic reference of the type you have presented here, one should not list names of recoverers and then end with "as well as themselves". Themselves does not have a theology or practice. Yet the verbage is consistent with the local church belief that "the recovery" R us. So consequently the local churches refer to themselves as "the recovery" which changes the meaning of the original term. Witness Lee is again not a theologian, but a preacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.99.216 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Localchurch (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:NOR for "Localchurch" to attempt to edit these articles according to his own personal theology. If he wants to found his own church, fine. But the article should reflect what Witness Lee and the "local churches" teach, not what this single-issue editor wants them to teach. Wikipedia is not the place for debating theology. These articles should be descriptive and encyclopedic. I do realize that "Localchurch" needs the benefit of the doubt before I report abuse, so if you could kindly inform him that his "mission" does not conform to Wikipedia policy, it would be appreciated.

I was trying to take a "vacation"...so much for that.

Sincerely Robert YoungRyoung122 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my talk page is not the best place to have this discussion. Can you try WP:NPOVN. Before doing that, read Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide and be sure to provide diffs as evidence when you file your request for assistance. Jehochman ^Talk 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GRB 970508 FAC

Hey mate! I realize that I've been somewhat of a slacker on Gamma-ray burst lately, but that's because I've been working on GRB 970508. I think you and I both realize how disappointing Wikipedia is when it comes to the field of gamma-ray bursts, so I think you can understand how excited I am to have submitted 970508 to FAC! You're probably pretty busy, but if you're still interested in GRBs, I invite you to leave comments at the FAC. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, again

[25]- Likely the exact same SPA pretending to be a different person seemingly ignorant of the prior talk page history. Btw, when the talk page was recently deleted and restored, your semi-protection of it was removed. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost irony?

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

Hi Jehochman,

Uhm, I just saw this and I think you may have overstepped... I've edited alongside both User:Nishidani and User:Ashley kennedy3 and, as even the most cursory glance at User talk:Ashley kennedy3 should make clear, they are very good friends.

User:Nishidani may have a somewhat odd sense of humour at times, but I seriously doubt that User:Ashley kennedy3, himself an academic and sharp enough to understand the ironical undertones of Nishidani's post, would have taken offence.

Please re-consider this block. User:Nishidani is a valuable editor and this kind of misunderstanding might well make him leave Wikipedia for good, which would be a great loss.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 01.04.2009 14:16

Oh, they were drama mongering. That's just as bad. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... Bad enough for a one-week block? As far as I can tell, this was not WP:DISRUPT. Or am I looking at the wrong policies? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 01.04.2009 14:22

Yes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what policies should we be looking at here? (Just a confused observer). Factsontheground (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT would be a good place to start. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so which part of this policy did Nishidani violate? Factsontheground (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment speaks for itself. It was a needless breach of decorum, designed to inflame an already serious dispute. We do not need that sort of approach to Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notice

(Required heads up) Please see here. I hope you'll take this review in the spirit in which I posted it. It's not intended as an attack on you, or an attempt to foment "drama", but I honestly believe that the block went overboard and should be undone or adjusted to 'time served.' Avruch^T 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I invite any reviews. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, 6/6 reviews (inc. mine) seem to strongly disagree with your reasoning and/or decision. John Carter may not be impartial, but even in that case, that's 5/5. But I agree with Avruch. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, none of you (except Bastique) addressed my concern that the edit was very disruptive. We don't decide based on votes (or voting blocks of friends). We decide based on strength of arguments. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever interacting with Nishidani, nor consider that this was a matter of polling - rather, just a measure of consensus. I found close to 0 strength in your argument based on the facts; despite that, I did try to accomodate your view through an unusual interpretation in even suggesting 24 hours as opposed to an immediate unblock. Therefore, I felt your concern was addressed reasonably (although I didn't detail the view to avoid tl:dr) - perhaps you should've considered that before making the comment you did above. IN any case, that's moot now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't condone it outright. I wouldn't have said it, and if I had seen it I might have cautioned Nishidani to tone it down lest he be misinterpreted. I am, as well, very supportive of efforts to rein in disruption in the ARBPIA area. On the other hand, context is still important - in this case, the context of Nishidani's relationship with the other guy and the likely lack of offense taken, as well as Nishidani's clear history as far as this type of thing goes. Anyway, it is resolved now though we disagree on the outcome. No hard feelings, I hope. Avruch^T 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no hard feelings. In retrospect, I think my reaction was stronger than it should have been because I initially thought Nishidani was taunting somebody. I hate bullying of any sort. I think a short 12 - 24 hour block for egregious breach of decorum would have been about right. Thank you for helping resolve this. It would be good if some of you would counsel Nishidani to tone it down when editing in the "hot zone". Know that I will be equally strict with editors on the other side of the fence. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Jonathan? If I'm anybody's friend in that affair, it's yours. What "voting block", in your opinion, was it that made me unblock Nishidani? Bishonen | talk 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

None this time, though they sometimes do appear, which is why we don't go on straight counts. Is that a hint of affection in your post? I am flattered. Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be if I were you.

Bishonen | talk 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Jehochman, I admit I still don't understand the comment for which you blocked Nishidani. If your block was a mistake, I think it was an understandable one. I'm relieved to see that Nishidani has been unblocked, though, and hope Nishidani will continue to help develop consensus for guidelines at WT:IPCOLL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general idea is that at [{WP:ANI]] we don't suggest other editors commit seppuku and remind them to stuff cotton balls up their arses before doing so. It's impossible to conduct business when that sort of rhetoric is used, and I tend to via talk of suicide seriously or semi-seriously. If people want to say such things to me on my talk page, I might laugh or ignore them, but standards at the village square are different than in the pub. Jehochman ^Talk 06:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Proper Way to Disprove Sockpuppetry?

Is this some sort of catch 22? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.248.238 (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re suicide

I live in a closed world, in that I edit only in a small corner of wikipedia, don't follow arbitration cases unless compelled to, and knew nothing about suicide threats, which I now learn are apparently not infrequent. That makes your reaction, as administrator, not only more comprehensible to someone like me, (who tends for professional reasons to be very careful about tone, context and language, and presumes one's interlocutors, few in number, understand where I am coming from), but also far more justified. Indeed, in retrospect, despite my initial grief, you've gone several notches up in my estimation. Thanks therefore for the snark or irony link. If I come back, I'll keep that in mind. It was a profound misreading, but administrators can't be expected, with the burden of unpaid labour they must work through, to catch every nuance in a small act played out at the edges of the vast theatre that is wikipedia. So, no harm done, and thanks for the snark. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded for the AdSense prank. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image removal

Howdy. I've removed this image from the Search engine optimization and Search engine results page articles as there appears to be a fairly overt racial slur in the results illustrated - in the Wikipedia result as luck would have it. Would you mind re-loading a new one or if I loaded one over it before restoring it to the articles? Kuru ^talk 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Go ahead and create a new one. Use any search you like. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Typical-serp.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Typical-serp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added further comment to the discussion. I'm afraid the fact that screenshot was taken of a query done capturing the exact two-minute window that the slur was present on WP. As the uploader you deserve a chance to explain how that could have happened. LeadSongDog come howl 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explained here. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Google seems to have tweaked their spider to update cache more often now, so at least something good came of it.LeadSongDog come howl 15:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Bean"?

It might damage your reputation somewhat, my good man, when it is found you are actually an alumni of Yale College Wrexham in Wales... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elegent, but useless

You write elegent and thoughtful requests for JzG to do something, but it's promptly shat apon by Abd. You've never told Abd to stop doing what he's doing. You've never told him to stop writing like a sophmore philosphy paper. You've never topic banned him from Cold Fusion. Why should JzG take you as an honest broker? Why shouldn't he press his luck and assume that the history of wikistalking and poor behavior from Abd will protect him? Why shouldn't he fall back on the community of people who have basically said "Abd has polluted this issue to the point where it's impossible to work out. Ban Abd from it and perhaps we'll look further?" Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wished to de-certify the RFC. There is a point that Guy is not seeing this as a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. It is very unfortunate that this was certified. It would have been better if it went away. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not seeing it as a good faith attempt at dispute resolution because it's not. The number of times Abd said that if he did not get exactly what he wanted he was going after yet another admin bit (epic failure #2 predicted) made it clear that the RFC was nothing more than a box check for him to go to arbitration. You, of course, know this, but have taken no action. Why should I see you as an honest broker? Why should JzG provide Abd any more ammunition by editing the RFC? Yet, you ask him to return, but you don't ask Abd to step off. Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is most powerful when applied where it seems least deserved. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. I'll do whatever you want right up untill the point where an RFAR is filed. What would you like me to do, exactly, as someone who is an honest broker. Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much you can do at this point really. Just remain calm and try to encourage the parties to address each others' concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it's in JzG's interest to say "I won't touch Cold Fusion again?" again (he already said that, you know) What have you done to get Abd to adress the communities' concern that Abd can't communicate with humans and is beating a dead horse? Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subheader

[Jehochman, Hipocite did stuff like this on Talk for the RfC as well, monkeying with subheaders to separate a response from the post being responded to, essentially claiming ownership of a section. Your talk page, your call. The text below is a response to Hipocrite's question, above, What would you like me to do, exactly, as someone who is an honest broker. I'm suggesting a possible answer, but, of course, he did ask you the question. You can take my response out entirely, whatever you think best.]

(unindent) (1) Read the RfC and if the evidence and arguments have merit, show that to JzG and encourage him to do the obvious right thing. If you don't understand the merit, you won't be able to help. (2) However, it's not like you are neutral, you are firmly in the same camp as JzG, and a dedicated supporter of ScienceApologist's bad history. I don't want to blame him for your behavior, so I won't. If you can reach to the middle, and Jehochman is the middle, then you might be able to help. Or you can continue with disruption at the RfC or elsewhere, i.e., with irrelevant attacks on me. Your choice. Which course of action will be more effective in helping the project? (3) This is your Talk, Jehochman, the scene of the original crime (mention of the blacklisting). I'll bug off any time you ask, with no resentment at all, only appreciation for the attempt you are making. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG already said he was never touching Cold Fusion again. He's done everything you want except get down on his knees and grovel. Of course, that's what you want, so you'll never get it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I want. What I want is for him to acknowledge the obvious: his actions violated policy regarding administrative recusal, and show intention not to repeat it. As long as he denies that he did anything wrong, the community cannot disregard the affair, administrative recusal is fundamental, and it is, in my view, and you might notice, in the view of others, practically inevitable that he'll lose his bit. Uh, what has he done that I want? Hipocrite, you are treading on thin ice. I won't formally warn you, though, I don't do that for incivility directed toward me, or for tendentious and disruptive argument involving me, but that doesn't stop someone else from noticing the obvious.

You seem to think that my issue is related to some interest in Cold fusion. That's a basic error. Jehochman knows this, from long experience: my basic interest is in Wikipedia process, in how we make decisions, not in promoting some particular content POV. Whether JzG touches cold fusion again or not matters little to me, I haven't asked for a topic ban (though others have suggested it).

I'd actually rather he ask his friend specific questions instead of just communicating to us some general impression re bogosity that, I fear, JzG may not have understood. For example, what unanswered questions might change his friend's ideas about cold fusion? What if the excess heat were rigorously shown, what if it was correlated with He-4 production, at the right level to explain the heat, what if alpha radiation were demonstrated, and all this with reliability, and low-level neutrons, of the right energy for D-T fusion, were found, but well above background, and missing from controls? Or, in the other direction, what, precisely, is wrong with the peer-reviewed sources that show all of this? I'd rather JzG be a part of the consensus process than try to control it with blacklisting, blocks, and article protection. He's involved, and the claim was not that his involvement was improper. At least not my claim! --Abd (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nitpicky Latin correction

Hey Jonathan, I saw this, and all I could think is "it's spelled nauseam." Sorry, the Latin teacher in me is coming out. Best to you, --Akhilleus (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I am a horrible speller and a worse typer. Today I told somebody they had to fix all the borken links on their site. That typo made me think of the Swedish Chef, and I've been giggling ever since. Jehochman ^Talk 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The 911 conspiracy theories can be a maddening area to work on. Thank you for putting in the time. The general sanctions and WP:AE only work because you and a few others are willing to with get involved. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Friendly advice"

You are giving me "friendly advice", according to a recent edit summary of one of your posts (diff), and you are posting other comments that appear as if you would be willing to work out differences in a cooperative way. At the same time, you are trying to initiate administrative processes against me, without informing me of this fact. How should I interpret your messages as friendly advice, under these circumstances? I'm wondering whether you are posting these messages with the aim of presenting them later on as evidence that you would have tried to resolve matters in a cooperative way.

Are you going to discuss the existing differences of opinion in a cooperative way? Then we should set up section on either your talkpage or my talkpage, and we should not insert comments related to our dispute in places where they are off-topic or simply ad hominem. Alternatively, you can of course continue to seek admininstrative enforcement against me. However, you probably understand that I would not be able to interpret your posts as friendly communication under these circumstances. --Cs32en (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start by looking at your editing from the position of somebody who' been here for four years and seen dozens of accounts banned for tendentiously putting forward argunents very similar to yours. I am open to the possibility you are a good faith user who is not deceitfully involved with the Truther attempts to spin Wikipedia. You may simply be somebody who's been taken in by their propaganda, or you might be a philosophical or principaled person who disagrees with how things appear to work. Do you understand how poisonous the 9/11 editing environment has become? Its very depressing to have a stream of redlink account coming in here at the requestof an external site to damage our articles. Yeah, a few innocents get caught up too, which is unfortunate, but how exactly do we solve this without giving in to those acting against the encyclopedia? Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have collapsed the talk page edits of other users, including one who is blocked indefinitely. At the same very moment, and on the same talk page, you have deleted my proposal to include information into the article. I would appreciate if you would reconsider this decision, and undo your revert. You can always leave a comment if you do not agree with my proposal or if you object to the way I have presented it. --Cs32en (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Somebody else did the first collapse, and that seemed to be a good idea, so I changed what I was doing at that point. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are probably in a process in which the reliability of the various sources that support different pieces of information is evolving. For an example, see the interwiew with Niels Harrit on the Danish government-channel TV2 (english subtitles). The broadcast begins by simply stating: "International researchers have found traces of explosives in the rubble of the World Trade Center." --Cs32en (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's not really a debatable issue; the source is totally unreliable. If traces of explosives were found at WTC, this would be front page news at the New York Times. Apparently some journalists in Denmark who are unfamiliar with American media made a mistake in their reporting. They apparently heard Truther propaganda or rumor and erroneously reported it as fact. Please drop this line of argument. I am not interested in talking to people who play the game we call WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Jehochman ^Talk 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I sure do appreciate all the help you have provided neutralizing the CTers on 9/11 related articles. While oppsed at all times ot silencing them outright, the repeat offenders and those that continue to peddle ridiculousness do nothing but harm the integrity of 9/11 related articles...thanks again.--MONGO 04:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition...Basboll above is banned from 9/11 related articles...I banned him from discussing 9/11 related issues on my talkpage as well just recently.--MONGO 05:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition...Basboll is now setting up a sandbox page which does nothing but serve as proof that though he recognizes his ban in directly editing articles related to 9/11, he still is using this website solely for that purpose indirectly...as shown in this page which he started 4/18...furthermore, he has been using talkpages and surrogates to do his bidding for him on this matter. I'm thinking that if the only purpose he sees that this website exists for him is to promote CT and minimize known evidence regarding 9/11 issues, then maybe he needs to be banned outright. I previously encouraged him to help us write articles that were outside the scope of 9/11 and he refused...this is a matter perhaps arbcom needs to address. Here he is trying to get Wayne to edit for him [26], here he advocates in defense of disruptive socks regarding 9/11 [27]...a list can be made that is pretty exhaustive. Banned from editing articles related to 9/11 but using surrogates to do his work for him, encouraging those that share his CT POV and acting in defense of those that are, in all liklihood ban evaders...--MONGO 03:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONGO, as you can see above, this is something I'm doing completely openly, and without any attempt to conceal the fact that I am topic-banned. There is no need for you to make any kind of list of activities (it's pretty easy just to look at my contributions). Just ask ArbCom to clarify whether I'm allowed to do this sort of thing. If I'm not, that's cool, I'll just delete the page and be on my may again. You don't have to spend a lot of time on it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition page

I applaud your commitment to keeping the Demolition article clean, to the extend possible using various sources.

But I notice you refer to truth research assertions (discussion page) as (a) theory and (b) propaganda. I had the same view at one time, so I can appreciate why your views are held.

I have in mind the question of (i) the distinction between evidence and theory (whereby it is possible for people to review empirical evidence apart from the question of theory). And next, (ii) perceptions of (invisible) motives of propaganda, which may not be so easy to know.

Do reliable sources really tell us unambiguously the things you believe?

Would researching the terrorist count (19 total?), and finding problems be called deranged conspiracy theory propaganda, just by virtue of research analysis (news reliability analysis)? You (or I) can call anyone we want a propagandist, but still the problem of the media spreading errors by relying on government reports has become somewhat infamous, ask Jessica Lynch. And:

So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq
The Commission: What We Didn't know 9... by Philip Shenon
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and... by Scott McClellan
Genius of America Lane and Oreskes
Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq Chaudhry and Scheer
Collusion Bonini, D'avanzo and Marcus

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Government coverups and conspiracies do exist. However, it is not our job to break these stories. Instead, we wait for the news to enter the main stream, then we cover it. For instance, see Eagle 56. Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that an official Wikipedia policy -- that Wikipedia only covers items which have entered the mainstream media? --Woozle (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, if Mainsteam is defined to mean reliable sources, and not original research. See also WP:V. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously this is an important policy point; presumably any item of fact which cannot be supported by reference to any sources designated by Wikipedia as reliable would, under this policy, be dismissable as non-mainstream. Is there an official list somewhere of all the sources Wikipedia admins generally agree meet the necessary standards, or is it more of a judgment call? --Woozle (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In my experience, it's more of a judgement call. In some cases, the question isnt simply whether or not the source is reliable, but what you are using it for. A major news source (CNN, BBC, etc.) would be a good source for quotes from relevant political figures and summaries of the opposing views on a particular issue. It would not, however, be the best possible source for more scientific information, as that can usually be found in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not familiar with the particular field of research that you seem to be working on, but I hope this helps. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it was nice

HI! It was nice to meet you all. Hope to meet again, and improve the wikiproject Connecticut. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

Hi Jehochman, I'm a bit puzzled about you stance on the Niels Harrit paper. The CD article includes a reference to Hufschmid's Painful Questions, which was an early (I think self-published) statement of the theory. While I agree that the Harrit paper is not published in a very impressive venue, it is surely a more reliable source of information about what the demolitionists are arguing than that book. It is also seems like a more reliable source of Jones's thinking about thermite than his previously published work. (No one is defending a formulation that says "Thermite has been found in the WTC dust", just "A paper has claimed that thermite has been found...") What am I missing here?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have any reliable sources reported on the significancy of this paper? If not, then it violates verifiability, undue weight, and no original research for us to report on the paper. Lots of people write lots of papers. We don't cover them unless they appear in a reliable source, or are talked about by reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right to think that this principle requires that a great deal of other material then also needs to be removed? I'm actually not sure that's a bad idea. I think the recent trouble stems in part from the ragged state of the article. If it was tidier statement of the theory and its status perhaps it would be easier to maintain a stable version?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes less is more. I think the article may be excessively long. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, in your opinion, are the the three or four most reliable sources of information about the controlled demolition theory (not outlets but actual sources, i.e., articles)? It might be useful to construct a version of the article based only on those sources as a start, and then, if necessary, expand carefully from there. I could do that in a sandbox without violating my ban, and then you could use it as you choose.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be worthwhile to write a crisp version of the article in your sandbox that neither used government sources, nor anything published by those who feel that information has been supressed. In other words, only use mainstream media sources, stuff where the writer has no stake in the outcome. I can't say offhand what are the best sources, but if you make a draft, I'll review it for you and give feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my current attempt. I'm going to think about sources and add them soon. Do let me know what you think.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad. The tone might need adjusting, and some additional details might be in order. Could you perhaps find somebody on the anti-CT side of this and see if they want to collaborate with you? Perhaps you could work with somebody and thus demonstrate your facility at collaborative editing. This might be a way to get your topic ban removed. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll be happy to pop in now and again. At some point your version could be proposed to replace sections or merge with the existing article. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to add my suggestions for sources and then invite collaborators. I'll probably get to that stage over the weekend.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¿Que?

Hi Jonathan, I noticed on the Requests for Retribution page you inserted some boilerplate but there's no actual content.[28] Did something go awry? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just editing. Go add comments. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I saw your followup edits. Sorry, I tend to assume others are as absent-minded as me... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

thanks. Never attempted anything this bold before, and I'm just a bit shakey on it. Appreciate the help. — Ched : ? 16:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just so you know, I've moved your reply to Durova up into your comment section at the Abd/JzG RFAR request here per the Arbitration Guide. If you have any questions, please let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta admins and discussions

I've asked here whether I've found the right links to the meta discussions and actions regarding the Abd and JzG arbitration request. I'm asking the parties and the two meta admins (here and on meta), but am also asking you since I thought you might be able to confirm this, being the filer of the request. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing! Nothing! Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Allo 'Allo! was more my sort of show, but it surprised me that it was so difficult to find links from the RfC or the request to those discussions. Hopefully they will be presented at the case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked or banned?

Hallo, I've got a question regarding this block log entry

17:57, 11 December 2007 Jehochman (talk | contribs) blocked User:Rex Germanus (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (See Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia community)

You added him, but then Angusmclellan removed him, explaining it at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_banned_users#Rex_Germanus and User_talk:Rex_Germanus#Community_ban. More than a year has passed since. As Angusmclellan seems inactive, I ask you first about the status, blocked or banned, and whether this affects only en-WP? The reason is that I have some Deva Vus over on Commons, see here. -- Matthead Discuß 01:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Rex was banned from en-wiki. As a practical matter, he's indefinitely blocked. If he's causing disruption elsewhere, you should not give him second and third chances. He's already been put on notice about what acceptable behavior is. Jehochman ^Talk 01:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting?

Sorry if I muck this up, I have no idea how to use these Wikipedia talk pages... I haven't logged on for a while but it's been brought to my attention that there was something launched against me three years ago for being a 'sockpuppet'? I don't know what a sockpuppet is, and I don't remember ever editing the Birmingham wikipedia page unless it was for grammatical reasons, but I use this username for a lot of things and it's popping up all over Google that I'm a 'sockpuppeter' and that I've been blocked from Wikipedia... which doesn't look altogether great for my screen name. I just didn't want to use my former username anymore, which is why I changed it. Can you revoke this please? Thanks! Dpm602 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have disassociated your name from that page, and moved it to another name, and added a NOINDEX tag so Google won't index it. Hopefully that will help your problem. Please let me know if it doesn't. Jehochman ^Talk 04:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that! I just looked in the edit logs of Birmingham to see the disputed vandalism that I did, and I'm a bit alarmed because I would have never made an edit like that. I think my account must have been compromised at the time. Is there any way to appeal against this ban, or is it too late? Dpm602 (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just start a new account? If you don't cause trouble, nobody will notice or care. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random but not arbitrary

"It is unfair to grab an arbitrary group of editors and invite the community to submit evidence against them." A lottery wouldn't be arbitrary, would ensure a bountiful harvest, and could be a bonding experience for the whole community. Just sayin'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I don't have time to participate in this case. Hopefully a few rational people will get involved. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talcott

I was intrigued to see the image you added to your user page. I did some work on Terry's Plain Historic District, and Simsbury, Connecticut, including the addition of pictures taken a couple miles from the place you took your photo.--SPhilbrick T 13:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is the one I was looking for. East Weatogue Historic District. Not much of an article, but you know that Farm, a few hundred feet from the Talcott Mountain ridge.--SPhilbrick T 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have even gone there for horse riding lessons. May be I will add some other pictures next time I get a chance. I would also like to get a better image of the mountan on a clearer day with a better camera. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?

Are you serious with this crap? Does this Iswaldo thing have anything to do with me calling you "Hochman?" Your user page says your name is Jonathan Hochman. If you don't want me to call you Hochman I'll gladly keep the first initial in. Just ask. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you liked leaving off the first two letters of the username. Okay, let's just call each by our usernames. As for the substance of my comments, I think cults are to religion what fringe theories are to science: phenomena that may be noteworthy, but unlikely to receive much coverage in scholarly works, except works by those who are "true believers". What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that instead of asking me you simply do some research. There is a ton of scholarship on cults and NRMs out there. You could start by looking at the references on Wikipedia, at New Religious Movements. As you may well know cults have been a subject of great interest in popular culture and in the media for some time now, especially post-Jamestown and again post-Waco. Anything that garners that kind of interest in mass culture will garner interest by scholars. Scholarship on these groups tends to be much more honest than the discourses you hear from group members or from critics. Some groups have been downright sinister (convincing members to kill themselves or others, cheating members out of money, etc.) but most NRMs are just strange to us normal folk, without being clearly harmful. Most scholars make no bones about any of this. At the same time they also don't fuel the fires of moral panic, the way that cult critics and the media often do. Wikipedia's problem, as far as I can tell, is that few people are interested in writing about cults from the perspective of scholarship. Instead you have critics and supporters fighting a highly charged ideological battle. Personally I wouldn't touch the subject area with ten foot pole. This current situation only validates that perspective even more to me. That said, I also don't think that we should be putting up with the collateral damage, and that, to me is how Cirt's anti-Scientology editing is related here. It's related through collateral damage (marketing for restaurants owned by ex-Scientologists, puffing up political articles of candidates who are liked by anti-Scientology organizations, etc.). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask you to review a few links? [29], [30]; [31], [32], [33]. There is a wealth of scholarly material available. I am really surprised you seem to have thought otherwise. Cheers, --J N 466 18:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the both of you: do you think the problem could be summed up as an excessive reliance on newspapers and pop media sources rather than serious scholarly works? Nevermind the pro- or anti- positions, it is Wikipedia policy to favor scholarly sources over pop media. Jehochman ^Talk 05:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this is clearly part of the problem. There are POV pushers on all topics on either side of them at all times. That's a fact we all have to live with. But there are times when some of the damage done could be mitigated by a better understanding of the scholarly POV. Climate science is a good example. If we relied only on mass cultural presentations of global warming we'd be forced to disregard the scientific consensus.Griswaldo (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

That, in a nutshell, is a major part of the problem. I have at times had real problems getting widely cited mainstream scholars even accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia. Melton is a case in point; he writes encyclopedias for Gale, is one of the most prolific contributors to Encyclopedia Britannica, and is generally one of the most widely cited scholars in the field, both in scholarship [34][35] and the media [36][37]. Yet Cirt for example considers him a "biased" and "questionable source", while himself citing sources like [38], [39] and [40].

I also agree with Griswaldo's characterisation of the battlefield problem above -- the field is dominated by supporters and critics, many of whom are interested in keeping scholarly writing out -- they would rather cite movement or countermovement sources. I wrote WP:NRMMOS a while ago to help address the situation, but it's slow going, because we simply do not have enough editors in this topic area whose primary interest is reflecting scholarship. When I have invited published scholars to contribute to Wikipedia (or have their students contribute), they have characterised Wikipedia's problem in much the same terms to me as Griswaldo above, and cited that as their reason for staying away to date. Cheers, --J N 466 11:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense to me, that scholars don't want to edit this topic area, though I get the impression that this is a problem in several other topic areas as well. I'm also not sure which entries in this topic area are better than others, etc. and I really have no desire to find out. Also, and I don't mean this to contradict what I said earlier, but some groups will have less coverage in scholarship than others. That's only natural.Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we all seem to agree, can we put forward the proposition that NRM articles should be sourced to serious scholarly work, if at all possible, and that references to either sensationalistic articles or puff pieces written by insiders should be avoided. A second important principle is that when writing a biography of a living person, excessive detail should be avoided, especially when this detail may be sourced to references that are lower quality or primary sources. If those two principles were actually followed in practice, would that help the situation? Once clear principles have been established it is relatively easier for editors to follow them, to point out problems when editors don't, and to request sanctions when friendly advice is not heeded. Whether Cirt has had sufficient warnings and guidance is a question the Committee can determine on their own, and then either they would provide any guidance or sanctions that would be appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this I'm much of the same mind as Anthonyhcole, who has tried repeatedly to point out that where we are now is a result of having no one of consequence (to Cirt) tell him that certain practices are not OK. The only reason all of this stuff about the perception of cults becomes important, IMO, is because given our natural inclinations to distrust and dislike certain groups (in this case Scientology) we've been giving too much leeway to those who actively criticize them. Again, in my opinion, this has lead to the types of situations that I have witnessed in which those who are trying to give Cirt "sufficient warnings and guidance" have been shouted down by groups of others. If Cirt wanted to he could point to many respected members of the community (admins, arbs, etc.) whose support of his behavior makes whatever warnings or guidance he's been offered by others null and void. After all, if there is no consensus that he's edited poorly or that he needs to make x, y or z changes then why should he heed such advice? This brings me back to Anthonyhcole's very simple request in all this. That we identify the very clear issues with Cirt's editing and once and for all give him the adequate warnings and guidance. I, for one, don't want to see him banned or blocked. I just want to see the community do the right thing here. I think your advice is good advice Jehochman, now I want to see someone with some authority, who Cirt respects ask him to abide by it.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that, Jehochman.

Thinking further, how about adding something about (1) low-quality/sensationalistic sources and (2) the appropriate level of detail in BLPs to WP:NRMMOS, based on existing generic policies and guidelines? The issue of scholarly sources vs. primary sources is already addressed there, but those two points aren't, and I agree they're important.

Once we've updated the manual of style, we could propose it for guideline status, to give the topic area a bit more direction, and to give the community a standard to evaluate editing disputes by. Cheers. --J N 466 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to propose principles such as we have started to enumerate. The principles are general and do not target any editor or POV. Get everybody, including Cirt, to agree to these principles. After editors have done that, they can hardly go back on the principles, or if they do, it is easy to point out that they've been given fair notice, and for whatever reason have failed to be cognizant and therefore regretfully need to be excluded from the topic area. Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that seems to be a good way forward. (I've added a reference to this discussion to the workshop talk page.) --J N 466 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced Jehochman's text with simialr text taken straight from WP:V. There's no need to re-invent the wheel. Will Beback talk 03:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened at thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Manual of Style. Will Beback talk 05:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussing anonymously

Heads up

Avoiding scrutiny

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

Checkuser election

CyberLink

RFAR on Prem Rawat

Orphaned non-free media (File:Serp.png)

File:Typical-serp.png

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

Could you have a word

Arbitration enforcement

Indents and Apologies

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Donations and RFAR

Closures at WP:AE

GROND

O'RLY?

Sonal Shah

Hello

Talk:Keith Henson

User:White_Adept and Arb.com rulings

Help with Callback_verification

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

Advice on Report format

Sai Baba – CU?

Middle 8 complaint you closed

Your views

Science Apologist toe across the line

"Kendrick7 has been editing with the primary/sole intention of linking years en masse"

Per your statement on Short Brigade Harvester Boris talk

please explain

Date injunction

Block of Dabomb87

Coaching

Thanks for your reply at AE

accusations agaisnt ChrisO?

Another sockpuppetry accusation

Xiutwel and 9/11 Arbcom

SEO again

You're invited!

WP:V

I really could use your opinion at Stroke

AE

re WP:AE

Rollback

Witness Lee article

GRB 970508 FAC

Heads up, again

Lost irony?

Notice

What is the Proper Way to Disprove Sockpuppetry?

Re suicide

AdSense

image removal

File:Typical-serp.png listed for deletion

"Old Bean"?

Elegent, but useless

Subheader

nitpicky Latin correction

Thanks

"Friendly advice"

Thanks

Demolition page

it was nice

Puzzled

¿Que?

Thank You

FYI

Meta admins and discussions

Blocked or banned?

Sockpuppeting?

Random but not arbitrary

Talcott

Are you serious?