Jump to content

User talk:Jehochman/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 24

Your edit summary at election talk

That was really funny! Tony (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure anybody noticed! Jehochman Talk 15:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Diff sorely missed. :( Don't forget about the wayward editors who don't know which way anything is. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Diff provided. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Bless you, Thejadefalcon! Proofreader77 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ewww

I nearly clicked on it. I'm glad I didn't. <deadpan>I didn't know goatse links were allowed in edit summaries.</deadpan> davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Things to look forward to in middle age. Jehochman Talk 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean [[:uncyclopedia:Category:Things to look forward to in middle age]]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Please see that I filed a request based on your block of Drolz09 here. If you'd like an expanded case that's no problem, but I think that this block needs a closer and clearer evaluation. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Supremes should deny cert on this one, save it for a case where there's something left to argue about--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
A customer just walked into our store wearing an oversized coat, and Jehochman responded by throwing him out, calling the police and having him arrested. I think this was a tad unfair, but I'm also concerned about what this does for profits. I'm downright befuddled at the explanations, and that there is no recognition of the problem with biting the head off of a new user. If I need a guard for my night club, I'll definitely give Jehochman a call. Mackan79 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Silage and scrumpy

Bad silage smells like compost, which is exactly what it is. Both silage and scrumpy are fermented organic matter, although with scrumpy the broken down sugars are converted into alcohol which is exactly what farmers don't want to happen to silage (it doesn't do the cattle any good) so they use a process which inhibits yeast formation... I don't know if you was ever a farm boy, but this city boy now lives in the countryside. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If the scrumpy is filtered, does that make it drinkable? Jehochman Talk 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to hurl. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
And, for the record, will be in london in 4 days, and will thus seek out scrumpy to test. Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I drank it once on a trip to the UK and was not impressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I drank four pints at a pub in Exeter once, and was highly impressed. This was a "non-pasturised" local farmer's product, that was poured from a small cask set up behind the bar. One word best describes the effects: Psychedelic. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

IAR

How exactly does this edit constitute ignoring a rule that prevented you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia(I have to admit though, I did get a giggle out of it)? Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Boosting morale! The persistent personality conflicts around Wikipedia are harmful. A little bit of levity can help keep people from getting wound up and attacking each other. It's just a website. Jehochman Talk 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. Fair enough. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Coren just indeffed Giano. If people would just lighten up, stupid community-destructing actions like that could be avoided. Jehochman Talk 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Kinda what I thought too. We take this place so damn seriously sometimes. (Err, I mean, like all the damn time.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking bets

Does anybody want to lay odds on me getting less than 25% support in the current ArbCom election? Jehochman Talk 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you counting the Chinese socks I bought you? :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Including any sort of undiscovered vote stacking, but excluding any disallowed votes. The results as published and verified. Jehochman Talk 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll make the market 35%-40%. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking 35-45% ... but given secret ballots, could be 85-95% ;-)
Payoff via paypal? :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You'll do better than you think, but if I'm being honest, I don't think you'll be elected. If you want a post-mortem: I'd be kind of shocked if very many people put a lot of stock in what FT2 or Elonka had to say. I know I didn't. On the other hand, just the fact that someone gets dragged down into the muck is usually enough to rob them of the dignity that people subconsciously (or consciously) expect from an Arb. On the other hand, you can start working on a userbox that says: "Don't blame me - I voted for Jehochman." :P MastCell Talk 23:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I seem to get a lot done as as a free agent. Perhaps it is best to keep operating that way. Committees are inherently slow and indecisive. Jehochman Talk 23:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Believe me, the day I decided that I no longer wanted to run in any kind of election on Wikipedia ever again was a very freeing moment. MastCell Talk 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I remember thinking previously that MastCell was pretty damn smart. Just confirmed. :-) And, yep, I want one of those userboxes. Amen. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't blame me - I voted for Jehochman.

User:Hipocrite/dbm. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I look so...reasonable in that picture. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Now added to top of my talkpage (pondering more honorable placement options :-) ... and noting that I just learned about two tiny, but useful, talk page templates I was heretofore teetotally ignorant of: {{-}} and {{od}} ... Nice to wake up and learn somethin' useful at Jehochman's Home for Wayward Editors. (I was also similarly in darkness about the spelling of "teetotally," but still would much prefer my initial version: "teatotally.") Waiting eagerly for that vote count (and who knows what drama might follow that. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Bored?
Don't blame me - I voted for Jehochman

My version. Jehochman Talk 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gotta vote for the smiling visage. I did vote for you, by the way. Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Fool! You're the only one, except for Proofy. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting for Jehochman version. (Much nicer color coordination with my Asian theme art ... and like drama icon, too. Perfect.) Installed. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: That userbox is the width of the top-of-talk words "User talk: Proofreader77" ... and sits perfectly above the invitation "To begin a new discussion, click here" ... with a perfect lead-in: Bored? ... Well, doggies. That works real nice, now, don't it? (smiling with delight at an unexpected post-election talk-page-beautification tweak) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

38.6

I win! lol Keeping that userbox! Proofreader77 (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove my post?

Right here. You removed it and didn't inform me of it in the talk page of the IP address of the computer I'm using; though I suppose the coarseness of your act is kind of answering my question.
:-/
[Special:Contributions/192.30.202.15|192.30.202.15] (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's been almost a day. I've gotten no response from you, much less a decent explainatuion, yet you have been active in the time being. Why did you remove my post here, assume that I'm a troll, and not even explain your action on my talk page?
The same question in the Help Desk seems to be getting a better response here.
If you don't respond in decent time, I'll revert your edit, and I suppose we will have an edit fight. (sigh)192.30.202.11 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Your post asked "how can I best violate policy". Per WP:BEANS or WP:DENY such posts can be removed. The rule is one editor, one account, unless they are connected publicly, such as User:Jehochman2. Sorry for the delayed response. I did not see your post before as several others arrived below. Jehochman Talk 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all. Thank you for your response. However, I don't remember explicitly posting "how can I best violate policy". The question was essentially two-fold: first, would it be permissible. Second, instead of arguing for it, or doing it and then defending it, wouldn't it be easier to try non-Wikipedian alternatives. Third, if alternate accounts are linked, what does that do for, say the person who doesn't want non-Wikipedians lurking into their accounts to figure out, or strongly suspect, that someone who they might know has contributed content that he/she doesn't want known--such as the Chinese or the Iranian who wants to contribute about fhis/her neighborhood and about politics of his/her country?192.30.202.15 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a good question. If you are such a person, I'd recommend contacting a checkuser and asking permission to set up two unconnected accounts. That is normally not allowed, but if you get permission first, it would be allowed. Feel free to repost that question the way you have phrased it here if you'd like other opinions besides mine. Jehochman Talk 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A good idea

Hi Jonathon. This looks to me to be a very good suggestion (or directive, or whatever) that you and I have some common interest in. Up for taking a plunge? --SB_Johnny | talk 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is some text at WP:BAN regarding community sanctions, and we could also add a section to WP:BLOCK regarding conditional unblocks and sanctions in lieu of blocks. We need to explain what an individual administrator could do, and what the community can do (these are different). We need to explain what community processes can result in a sanction, and how consensus is determined. Jehochman Talk 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yikes. Ad hoc? Seems like a euphemism for arbitrary and per whim to me. Cheerios. Happy Solstice J-Hoch (in a few days anyway). ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It's an abbreviation for ad hochman. Jehochman Talk 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well

You owe me a drink, I think, but we can lose it in the wash, we'll need a few. Actually, 12th was what I had predicted for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Other way, you own me because I polled lower. I am pleased that the cutoff will be around 60% support. It's good that ArbCom isn't going to be populate with people having only marginal support. Jehochman Talk 23:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Makes no difference under 9th. Either way: the people have spoken, the bastards. Let's get that drink.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a semi-famous quote by Dick Tuck.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounded vaguely familiar .. but at 7:30 AM and not yet gone to be[d]... everything sounds fresh and new. lol Many thanks, now I know where it comes from. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
(That is by far the worst quip I have ever composed.;) Proofreader77 (talk)

Hard luck Chochman, and thanks for being a good sport through all the trials and tribulations of the campaign. Respects,  Skomorokh  13:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tossing your hat into the race for Arbcom. I hope that the outcome won't discourage you from contributing to the mediation of disputes. I'm pretty surprised by the outcomes, and with the secret voting set-up there's no way to see how people actually voted, so oh well. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. We needed more candidates, and if I was able to run, so could anybody. Next year I hope we'll have more candidates. Jehochman Talk 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you can place your name on the ballot twice so the oppose votes will split. (poker face, not smiling, wiggling though) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re effectiveness sans-office

I remember reading a post-election comment somewhere (by you/Jehochman) to the effect that you may be more effective as a free agent (don't remember phrasing). Do you remember the place (the diff) or simply what you said? (You may, of course, improve the phrasing here for the historical record. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

  • User:Ottava Rima is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.
  • User:Moreschi is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.
  • The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for the imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies. The community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Proposed trouts

I tend to agree with you on all of these. We will probably be doing something along these lines very soon. Cool Hand Luke 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It was FayssalF's idea originally. When writing the justification, you may find Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? useful, as well as Wikipedia:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. If you are a watcher, you have to be sure not to do anything that would require watching. This is a fine point that should be codified in policy. A corollary is that suppression must be used extremely carefully when it might appear to benefit Oversighters, or those who supervise them. In essence we have the traditional three branches of the US government: editors make policy, administrators enforce policy, and arbitrators judge disputes and interpret policy. Jehochman Talk 02:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
editors make policy, administrators enforce policy, and arbitrators judge disputes and interpret policy. - oooh, I like that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. I agree in full. See also WP:ARBADMIN. (This proposed policy will never pass, of course, but I would like the committee to impose limitations along these lines upon itself.) Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up..

I saw you were active on Wikipedia:Administrators. I posted a suggestion to the talk page about updating the wheel-warring policy. I invite discussion, etcetera there. SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bennetta Slaughter edit and COI

Jehochman, please see this [1]. Can you field this and respond to the user's questions? I think it might be best coming from you, as you are quite knowledgeable about this issues (both the user's acknowledged coming from an employment of SEO, and the WP:ARBSCI case, etc.) Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. This looks like a case where the user should be kindly directed to WP:BFAQ and advised to follow best practices. Jehochman Make my day 02:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no worries. Perhaps you could point the user in that direction? Cirt (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As a heads up, please see this [2]. Cirt (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What a wonderful quote

Prominently on my talk page now.[3] Thanks! Ikip (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that civility is not objective - it's inherently and unavoidably subjective. The attempt to reduce civility to a set of objective rules is one of the roots of dysfunctional Wikipedia culture. MastCell Talk 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Courts have done it for years to define the boundaries of workplace harassment. We're no different. This is a workplace for volunteers. Jehochman Talk 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again, excellent point again Jeho. There is WP:Equality, but in attempting to make thisa guideline, editors argued this is perscriptive, not descriptive. Ikip 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The improper actions of an ex-admin (who hates humour)

See topic at bottom of this revision (it's your talk page, but no need to leave big text here).

Question: What is right forum/process to restrain such an editor from damaging the conversation environment by acting as anti-humour patroller? Proofreader77 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Set aside (subsume)

Bigger fish to fry. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Spellcraft?

In case you were wondering what the hell I was talking about: [4].  :-) — Coren (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I watched that movie at Halloween with my kids. :D Jehochman Make my day 14:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And what about this movie? Here's a trailer. [5] Have you watched it yet? Whatever that button is that the man with the cat pressed, I hope that the admins will never get it added to their tool kit. David Tombe (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No. No. No. Wrong movie. My relationship with ArbCom is like this one: [6] Jehochman Make my day 15:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There's pie (as above) ... and there's prophecy ;-) Waywardly breaching the edge of infinity Proofreader77 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for useful things

Drama-box (excellent! and multi-purpose^;^) + signature trick. "Make my day" (Indeed. lol) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  • "Erstwhile" is, for some reason, not a word in my active vocabulary ... but I see it appears useful. (Perhaps the problem is that it's a word you wouldn't expect the audience to know what you meant if you said it as a guest on Letterman. I will ponder it further... while eating some pie. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist again

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed siteban for Logicus (talk · contribs), Ncmvocalist announced:

It's been about 48 hours since this discussion started, so time has been given for everyone to respond from different timezones. It also is unambiguously going in one direction. I'm thinking of closing this in a little under 24 hours...unless there is some material objection? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate, or permissible, for Ncmvocalist to close a topic on the Administrators' noticeboard?—Finell 03:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Somebody else can reopen it, or change the close if they think he did it wrong. Jehochman Ho ho ho! 11:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The question I was trying to ask: Is it appropriate, or permissible, for someone who is not an administrator to close a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard? (Belated) Merry Christmas and (very slightly premature) Happy New Year!—Finell 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the community would agree it's a problem. I personally believe that anybody can do any task if they do it correctly. Ncmvocalist was previously asked not to act as unofficial arbitration clerk on arbitration pages. There may be a touch of not getting it. You could start a discussion if you think the close was improper. Jehochman Brrr 19:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. He didn't close it, he merely proposed to do so "unless there is some material objection". An administrator closed it after Ncmvocalist and I had a spat over the issue.—Finell 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks for all your help in 2009. Wishing you a very Happy and Prosperous New Year 2010. :Radiantenergy (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for PCHS-NJROTC

I'm tired of reverting and arguing about premature closure of threads that I start in an attempt to get consensus on a topic ban for PCHS-NJROTC. The thread has been rolled up again with the only actual !vote being mine. You and DGG seem to have at least understood the basis for my concern - can I ask you to see this through to a conclusion? I don't much care what that conclusion is at this point, so long as people seem to have actually considered the evidence. Be aware that the reason I included the "compromised" account episode was to illustrate that PCHS-NJROTC has previously lied to admins on ANI, and therefore you should be wary of any promises they make. Thanks (and I will understand if you simply want to let the matter drop). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know why you found it necessary to unarchive something another admin, Tedder, had already archived. I don't think telling PCHS-NJROTC stuff we already know (mark vandalism, go to the admin for problems, etc.) is going to make this go away any quicker. What you are doing is feeding the troll that is DC. PCHS-NJROTC has already said it was a mistake, several admins, several users and hell, even ChildofMidnight has told DC to let it go and archived the damned threads...yet you seem to think re-re-re-re-rehashing the same tired, played out thread with "evidence" people have read and all said shows NOTHING is going to do something. You are an admin, stop wheel warring, stop edit warring and let the damned thing die and stop feeding the trolls. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I unarchived it because I wanted to comment. DC is entitled to get their concerns addressed on the merits. The thread was badly disrupted, and their concerns were never addressed. Jehochman Brrr 03:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
But when admin after admin and user after user have said in 5 (!) different threads on ANI and AN that they have read the "evidence" and it isn't going anywhere, for DC to read WP:STICK and WP:AGF and let it die and he just laughs and does it again, that is solving something? When does it merge into disruption, harrassment, edit warring and trying the community's patience? It needs to stop. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a potentially good explanation. DC says that prior threads were forcibly archived without a proper conclusion. The other editor sort of went overboard on the current thread, which lead me to thinking that maybe DC had a valid point somewhat. I'm not familiar with prior threads. Had somebody calmly posted an explanation with links to those threads and citing WP:STICK, I'd have looked at the prior threads and might have agreed. But that didn't happen. No links were given, so all I saw was a complaint and a respondent making a poor response. My suggested resolution is quite mellow and practical. I hope it helps. Jehochman Brrr 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have never been one to look for links, that is kinda my bad suit. I will look in ANI's archives, gimme a couple on that one. But why I am involved is I seen a user getting the short end of the stick. Once at ANI, couldn't be helped. Twice, seemed much. Thrice, that is when I said "OK, this needs to stop". Even though he went after my friend Allstarecho, I actually have nothing against DC. He just needs to learn to stop when asked. That is all I am asking, for him to just let poor PCHS-NJROTC have some peace. I personally don't blame PCHS-NJROTC for losing his temper. I would, and have, too. I will look for those links. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I can sympathize with somebody not wanting to get reported over and over and over again for the same thing with assumptions of bad faith and character aspersions piled on top. Something like that happened to me last year. :0 I promised PCHS-NJROTC that I'd make sure they weren't railroaded,[7] and I will keep my word. Jehochman Brrr 03:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Those first two threads weren't handled very well by uninvolved admins. The greatest amount of clue came from User:DGG. Otherwise the threads were pretty much overwhelmed by the respondent's comments, and there were very few clueful, uninvolved remarks. If there's a problem with recurring sock vandalism, all PCHS-NJROTC needs to do is report it to me, and I will do my damnedest to stop it. Jehochman Brrr 03:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think both of those threads were archived multiple times before they were finally archived by the bot. It just seems alot of the admins and users just wanted it to go away and PCHS-NJROTC was willing (and has) to disengage from DC. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Final Warning

I would rather that come from the community and not one admin who is clearly involved in this situation. Have another admin, uninvolved, bring it up with me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am totally uninvolved. Seeking to stop disruption does not make one involved. Please listen to my warning because you're skating on thin, thin ice. Jehochman Brrr 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't threaten. You became involved when you posted to the thread. If you want the matter taken up, do an RFC, otherwise an involved admin threatening a user looks very bad and you have a record my friend, just like me. You have thin ice in your pond as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Pfft. Links work better than mud. I'm quite careful and have repeatedly been subject to close scrutiny. Jehochman Brrr 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I was about to strike that. That wasn't right for me to bring up. That was bad form. I apologize. We should leave the past in the past. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Somehow I have fond memories of your editing, even though I did once indef you for socking. If I remember correctly, I was pretty sad to do that. I'm trying to mediate the current dispute and get the two editors to go off in different directions. Jehochman Brrr 03:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was me being stupid. I have redeemed myself pretty well and worked alot on the same radio pages I did before and have tried to branch out and work on helping others in need. My best work so far is getting a teenager in Ireland some help. I worked with several admins here in the US, UK and Ireland to get checkuser information, a call into the police and then waiting for that call back. We got to the kid just in time. So that is my best work yet, but that one was definitely a collabrative effort across two continents and three countries :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearing up some misunderstandings

Okay, firstly, this has nothing to do with DC or the ongoing drama; this is just to clear up some possible misunderstandings. Some seem to believe that I'm going around calling the FBI or law enforcement every two seconds, or acting in some other bizarre way. In reality, I've probably only contacted law enforcement in two situations related to Wikipedia. I have never contacted law enforcement about simple "school girl vandalism," only when there's been real life threats (i.e. repeated threats to murder celebrities).

I do sometimes file abuse reports. When I do, I do it in a quite professional manner; I do not yell at ISPs, argue with them, cuss at them, demand that they take a particular action, threaten to sue, or act in any other juvanile way, nor do I represent myself as an official representative of the foundation. Most of the time, reports probably result in warnings being issued if the vandals don't already have strikes against them for other issues.

I have nothing against "cheerleaders." I'm friends with almost every cheerleader at my own school. Heck, I even know two from another school. If they're nice to me, I'm nice to them, in real life or online. I do have a problem with "snobs" and people that think they're better than everyone else, which is why I had such an issue with "cheerleader vandals" is because I assumed that they're not the nice ones, but that's mostly irrelevant because a vandal is a vandal and a troll is a troll, WP:RBI and WP:DENY apply. Sorry for judging the vandals?

I do not "lie" to admins to get out of trouble. A lot of people dislike Obama in my geographic location, and for what it's worth, I did used to monkey somewhat in WP:SAND, but within reason. I was blocked for a compromised account because the editors at AN/I knew it is not like me to carry on like that, not because I told them as such. I was editing from home while someone at the hospital was playing around, possibly without even knowing they were doing it as me because I goofed and forgot to close out of the internet browser. That particular terminal has been known for abuse issues at that time of the night. I'll be the first to tell you I sure as heck wouldn't be on there at that time of the night.

My contributions do not consist mostly of troll related drama. I brought Port Charlotte High School to a GA from a stub, uploaded numerous pictures for use in various articles, made some disambiguation pages and redirects, and created more than a few articles. I have real life issues that must come first right now, but I'm going to create an article about FraudWatch International in the near future. I created the shared IP template specific to businesses, as well as some other templates. I've created barnstars, including the purple heart and my own anti-vandalism barnstar; it was quite a while ago and I believe there were others. I've improved various articles, including the correction of an inaccuracy at Plastic recycling (that's just the first that comes to mind, there's been many many many more).

Yes, I do right excessively long messages. I'm quite verbose at times, especially when I'm in the middle of a heated debate. Hopefully adding breaks between points has made it easier for you. I'm also bad about not providing diffs because it often takes several minutes per diff to find what I'm looking for. Have a Happy New Year, and thank you for your help in our search for a peaceful resolution. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's great that you have so much energy. If you need help, just ask. Jehochman Brrr 04:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I really hate to have to do this, especially on the talk page of someone who is trying to help -- and also because it is really rather tedious -- but I have to address the "compromised" account issue.

  • Two accounts were suspected of being compromised (based on offensive edits made in the sandbox) and were blocked
  • User:Deamon138 confirmed that their account was not compromised and they were responsible for the edits
  • A checkuser confirmed that User:PCHS-NJROTC's account was editing "from the same IP that GO- [ie.PCHS-NJROTC whose username at that time was GO-PCHS-NJROTC] has been using, and there's nothing to indicate it's from a different computer"
  • the edits made by PCHS-NJROTC came immediately after a string of normal edits (within a minute)
  • PCHS-NJROTC had made similar strings of edits in the sandbox on at least two prior occasions including here where they labelled Barack Obama as a racist, and here where they use similarly insulting terms toward a variety of US political figures
  • Deamon138 and PCHS-NJROTC had previously interacted on Wikipedia and were friendly
  • PCHS-NJROTC's account at one point in the sandbox edits stated: "As crazy as it sounds, your not supposed to conduct edit wars with rollback, even in the sandbox. I know this 'cause I almost got nailed for it when I first got it." (PCHS-NJROTC had received rollback rights about a month earlier)

So, the edits came from PCHS-NJROTC's usual IP, the edits use the language (including grammar errors) similar to PCHS-NJROTC, PCHS-NJROTC had a history of making juvenile political comments in the sandbox, and knew Deamon138. The idea proffered by PCHS-NJROTC at ANI (a hacker spoofed their IP) is plainly ridiculous. I think it's clear that PCHS-NJROTC was responsible for those edits and lied about it to avoid the consequences, which appears to be a pattern. This is one of the reasons I am asking for a formal topic ban, because I quite simply do not believe that their word has any value and I would like to avoid revisiting this in the future under less-than-clear terms (for obvious reasons). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a debate. Jehochman probably doesn't really care. I have a right to explain myself, and I don't need you or anybody else putting in your two cents.


DC, I'm trying to disengage here, but you have no right to do what you're doing considering there's many issues in your user contributions that lead me to believe that you're not mature enough to handle anti-vandalism (i.e. biting newbies, personal attacks in edit summaries, creating pages under a new name to avoid consensus, completely ignoring general consensus, edit warring, and just out right being immature), but I let it slide for the most part for the sake of not creating extra drama. Throughout this mess, I've not really wanted to see you blocked or anything, but at this point, I seriously do hope someone goes into your history and hammers you for your immaturity (some of which was a lot more recent than any of mine) and for being a hypocrite. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 14:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification.

I'm just tidying up some loose ends and not trying to be pointy here, but please be aware that this means that you are no longer an uninvolved admin with respect to myself and any use of your administrative tools against me would likely be considered an abuse thereof. If you ever have occasion to believe that administrative actions against me are required please seek out an uninvolved administrator to perform them. Have a nice day. --GoRight (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See also discussion at Lar's talk page. Jehochman Brrr 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the measures page

Hi Jehochman, Ref WMC section on the measures page which you closed I should probably fess up to implying it was unfair. The IPCC article had a "no edit warring" warning put on it and I warned Nutley here that one of his edits was a straight revert, persuading him to self revert out of it as a straight revert looked like edit warring. Then WMC straight reverted him and he complained fairly reasonably. I don't think WMC needs measures but Nutley probably deserves being taken a bit more seriously than some of the others. Even though his complaint was a bit incoherent. --BozMo talk 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I did not formally warn Nutley. A case for ownership violation might be possible, I suspect, but this wasn't it. Accusations are serious business. They should be clear and supported with relevant diffs or links. Jehochman Brrr 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification?

Have you notified Viridae of your intention to unblock GoRight? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I posted to User talk:GoRight. If I block somebody I watch their talk page. Presumable Viridae does too. My plan is to wait for a response. Feel free to ping. Jehochman Brrr 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You posted in a thread with a header that seems unrelated to your intent to unblock. Even with the talk page watchlisted, Viridae might not be aware of an unblock discussion taking place unless he was reviewing every edit to the page. If your intent is to seek comment from Viridae before undoing his block, then it would be wise to either create a thread with a suitable title (which will be apparent on a watchlist) or just send a little invitation yourself. It's a plain courtesy thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
That seems premature. GoRight has not indicated that they want to be unblocked, so I am content to let the status quo be. Jehochman Brrr 19:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology.

Now that I can make this statement freely and not under the threat of indefinite block I wish to say that this was wrong-headed, I should not have done it, and I apologize for having done so. Let us both endeavor to put this matter behind us and speak of it no more. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy editing. Jehochman Brrr 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Swimapod

Hey, Jehochman. I don't understand why the animated gif Swimapod in Bishapod's userboxen is suddenly no longer animated. Do you? So sad! The image is animated all right, including the thumb on the image page (scroll down). But the thumb in the userbox isn't, and Bishapod is all "oh woe no more splash". :-( Help? Bishonen | talk 00:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

Same on my signature page. The animated horse has stopped running and the flashing lights aren't, but I think the lego animation is still working... thank goodness! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Bugzilla has been filed for this ...

bugzilla:22041. Tech folks will resolve. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 20:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the most useful talkpage watchers of any editor. Jehochman Brrr 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
"Useful," may ass. LoL They screwed up MY pretty userpage. Pure selfishness. :-) (And I just waywardly hang around here for inspiration for the Wikipedia Western Musical and have some dirt to casually mock Jehochman about ... at fitting moments. ^;^) --Proofreader77 (interact) 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly...

Despite your warning, Neutralhomer decided to lob some more attacks on AN, make an ultimatum (I'm not sure why they feel that I need to do something to close the thread), and then carry it out without even waiting for their self-imposed time limit to expire. I don't want to take this to ANI, because that would likely invite more of the same. Can you (or one of your talk page watchers) deal with it? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer is indefed. Please go edit some articles instead of involving yourself further in these disputes. Thank you. Jehochman Brrr 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Jehochman. I don't actually try to get into these kinds of disputes, you know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of Damiens.rf

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

Regarding this block of User:Damiens.rf, can you provide diffs for each of the 5 problems you noted? Those are rather strong accusations and I think there is plenty of room for interpretation.  Frank  |  talk  16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Walk through the contributions. Damiens.rf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As time permits I'll pull a selection of diffs. Jehochman Brrr 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. I see you are back editing, so I guess I'll post a comment here first. I'm tending towards overturning this block. The main reason is that at least two of the rationales you cited for the block are quite problematic, in my view: first, the charge of "racism" is a very hefty one and, without evidence, indeed constitutes a severe personal attack. It should never have been made without citing clear evidence right from the start. Personally, I believe the charge is quite absurdly mistaken. Secondly, I'm afraid I object in the strongest possible terms against your use of the charge of "vandalism" to describe D's attempt at removing those quotes. It is an unfortunate myth, hard to eradicate but a myth nevertheless, that "removal of cited information" ipso facto constitutes vandalism. It is bad enough that many of our inexperienced users keep making such claims in all sorts of situations; seeing a senior administrator of your standing echo that myth [8] is, with all due respect, very disappointing. There can be any number of valid editorial reasons for removing correctly cited information, and in this case D. evidently felt he had such reasons – and he did explain them properly and followed reasonable dispute resolution methods when challenged about them. This was a legitimate content dispute, nothing else. As for the charge of "hounding" through repeated IfD nominations, this problem has been discussed repeatedly and the result is always the same: it is a fact that some users – including good-faith highly productive users, unfortunately – tend to upload very large numbers of borderline or problematic non-free images, and often succeed in establishing local consensus over a limited topic area leaving them and their immediate fellow editors with the (mistaken) assumption that such liberal usage is legitimate. When an image patroller chances across that topic area, he will then have no choice but to tackle the whole bunch. It is easy to agree that this will cause stress and possibly some aggravation to the parties involved, but it is unavoidable. It would simply not be efficient to tackle only a few and let the remaining 95% of problematic images stand untouched, in the hope that some other patroller will come across them some other time. The demand that image patrollers should divide their attention in some "random" fashion across many uploaders and topic areas in order to save individuals the stress of having large batches of their work scrutinised at once is simply not a reasonable demand to make. This has repeatedly been discussed with respect to D.'s work (last time in mid-December, if I remember correctly), and it always boils down to the recognition that we have the contributions log for a good reason, and using them to clean up problematic editing patterns is not "hounding".
As for the civility concerns, yes, it may be that D. can sometimes sound abrasive, but the treatment he is getting here in cases like this is hardly going to improve his mood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand what I said, and am very concerned that you not unilaterally, and in derogation of policy, overturn my block. Please take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard for discussion. I do not agree with you. Please don't take any action until there is a consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Damiens.rf_block_review. Jehochman Brrr 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(several ec) Sorry, didn't seem there was also the noticeboard thread already. I was wondering at first: I'm here discussing things with you, as I should, so what's wrong?! Anyway, will head over to the AN thread now; but my position remains the same. (And no, me overturning you after fulfilling my obligation of consultation, as I did, would never have been wheelwarring.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Acting impetuously while there's an ongoing discussion may not be wheel warring, but it certainly isn't best practice or good judgement. We've always gotten along pretty well as far as I remember. Let's let that discussion go on. Add your points, and in the end we'll see what the consensus is. Thank you. Jehochman Brrr 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by admin Malik Shabazz

Do you think this is an approriate comment from an admin? The only way to interpret it is that he is accusing me of lying. He is denying this, but refuses to modify his comments although I have asked him to do so.[9] Offliner (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In order to understand the situation, please see all my responses at User talk:Offliner#Tylman AfD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
See also [10] ("instead of attacking it because you don't like its subject"). For purposes of transparency I have sent Jehochman an email regarding the AfD. Triplestop x3 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Which demonstrates you don't understand the concept of "transparency" very well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
What? Do you want me to copy the email here? There was nothing on the email asking him to vote. It merely asked for advice on how to assure a fair outcome without any politics going on. Triplestop x3 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review?

You appear to have unblocked Neutralhomer, despite their history and the fact that another admin refused their unblock request. I recognize your kinder, gentler style, but Neutralhomer has already had many many chances to improve their behaviour. You asked that admins speak to you or obtain consensus on AN/ANI before unblocking - I am requesting that you obtain that same consensus for this unblock, and that you reblock Neutralhomer until you have done so. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly request that you not interact with that user again. They are under an obligation not to get involved with you at all. If they interfere with your activities on Wikipedia, let me know. Otherwise, please ignore them. Thank you. Jehochman Brrr 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have absolutely no desire to interact with them, but that is irrelevant to my request. Neutralhomer has been under several such obligations before and it hasn't helped prevent recurrences. This is their third or fourth indef block that has been lifted based on promises of better behaviour in the future. Please start a discussion about your unblock and re-block them until there is a consensus for unblock. It would likely be better if you started the discussion than if I did, but I am content to do so if you are unwilling. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, to me it looks like you're going a little too far. I was patient with your complaints and took them seriously. If I block somebody indefinitely, that does not mean forever. It means until suitable arrangements are made for a return to editing. The arrangements were made to my satisfaction, so I undid my block. Should you start making needless conflict over this issue, you run the risk of being placed under an editing restriction. So just drop it and do something else. Neutralhomer will not bother you again. Personal conflicts have no place on Wikipedia. Jehochman Brrr 13:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for having taken my complaint seriously. I assume you did so because you saw some merit in them, not to humour me. You quite reasonably asked other admins to seek consensus for unblocking Neutralhomer, yet when I ask you to do the same (after another admin refused to unblock them), you threaten me with some unnamed editing restriction. This isn't a question of personal conflict, it is an attempt to prevent others from being harassed in a similar manner. I have no intention of interacting with Neutralhomer and I hope they will be able to prevent themselves from interacting with me, but look at Neutralhomer's block log - previous "arrangements" have failed to prevent episodes such as the most recent. Why are you unwilling to put your unblocking of Neutralhomer up for review when that is what you requested of other admins? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Because he's a goofball? 68.0.191.139 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman, you reverted the removal of trolling here but didn't respond to my request. I'm not going to assume that you are refusing to open the requested discussion, but if you fail to respond to this message I think that would be a reasonable assumption so I'll go ahead and start the discussion myself. I don't understand your reluctance to do this - would it help if I agreed not to participate in the discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at WP:AN. I continue to be puzzled by your refusal to start the discussion yourself, but I hope that I have accurately represented your position and actions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PLAXICO. Jehochman Brrr 16:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I really do not understand your attitude towards this, especially given that you requested the same of other admins. Why should simply questioning your unblock of a user earn me any kind of editing restriction? If there is no consensus to reblock Neutralhomer then they will not be reblocked. I realise that some people feel protective of Neutralhomer and that I will likely be cast as the villain in this piece, but there really isn't any need to threaten me. It would have been much simpler for you to have started the discussion, but I suspect you actually prefer this situation. Over and out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you have any real life connections to the controversy surrounding Roman Polanski? Jehochman Brrr 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand you feel that my content is somehow skewed in regards to Polanski. I have raised Proofreader77 concerns in ANI, which were exposed by his interactions of constant reverts and fighting on Polanski. It began when Proofreader77 wanted to insert the appearance of the 13 year old girl....looking older....as HIS STATED means of mitigating the perceptions of the readers, when they read about the 44 year old man and a 13 year old. Basically saying that because a girl look a way, it was more understandable what happened. This is much like Generically saying: The woman was very pretty which resulted in her being raped. Proofreader77 actively sought to remove common sense items. Including the victims own words regarding the event. I am very comfortable that I am editing in line with the guidelines of encyclopedic entries of BLP in Wikipedia.

If you want to challenge my content, feel free. But at this point you are doing a disservice to the ANI by taking your content concerns about me...DISPLACING what has been raised about Proofreader77. Please take the time to read what other admins are saying. Reference the restrictions. Look at the Donation banner attacking admins. Or don't. It's not a bear trap, you can disengage. But if you do want to participate in the Proofreader77 ANI, please do so without avoidance of reading and understanding the problems being raised about Proofreader77, which you clearly have not spent the time to understand.

Seem reasonable to you? --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not reasonable. When you file a complaint, you bring scrutiny on yourself. Any thorough investigator looks at the person filing a complaint to assess their credibility before checking the substance of the complaint. I routinely do this, not just for your thread, but for all threads I respond to. You have not answered the question I asked: Do you have any real world connection to the Roman Polanksy controversy? Are you somebody who has an interest in the outcome of the matter? Your editing pattern creates an appearance that you may. Jehochman Brrr 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
As to if I have a personal connection to Polanski beyond that of being a person that is concerned with humanity and it relationship to our children, who are ourselves....No. As to looking at the messenger instead of the message...to an ANI...the merits stand on their own, which you should assess for that.
Now, what I raised in ANI, is beyond myself, and any content that I am concerned with, singular to myself, though certainly the actions of Proofreader77 have effected me. If you are going to assess me, because of a backwards approach, so be it. But your desired ignorance of the subject matter shown in the ANI, is a liability to productive remarks. Your approach to spout off literally challenging what work I have done, as a basis to whether the concerns are valid, is a remedial approach, and the antithesis to AGF. While I appreciate your choice of how you prefer to interact, challenging a person raising concerns, in the way that you have done, only serves to make others chose to not raise their concerns.
My apologies, I had not previously seen your banner of clown masks, but that is still no excuse for making ANI a circus de jour. If you want to challenge the work that I do, do that on its own. If you want to assess the message that I have carried to ANI as one without basis on its own merits, do that, and say that. Why not read the bolded remarks by Hans Alder and Gwen Gale, for the very least you can do in terms of due diligence, before opining. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Roman Polanski is an expert-level article because of all the issues involved. It is very easy for an inexperienced editor to run afoul of policies there. I recommend you diversify your editing by working on some non-controversial articles. This will help you gain an appreciation of how to work within, and maintain, Wikipedia's numerous site standards. Anybody can edit, but learned how to make quality edits that stick takes time and practice. Regards, Jehochman Brrr 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the boiler plate, I hope you take into consideration, what I have conveyed to you, in the specifics. Rgds --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you're involved ...

... in the Damiens.rf/Tony the Marine thing you may feel like helping out with an image sourcing issue. Especially since you seem to be a user of LinkedIn. Our article on Carlos Ortiz Longo has an image which probably came from NASA, but we aren't quite sure. I've tried a couple of email addresses for Dr Ortiz Longo but without luck. He has a profile at LinkedIn. Any chance you could email the good doctor and ask him if he has any ideas on where File:Carlos Ortiz Longo.JPG came from? Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed him for help. Jehochman Brrr 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat

Hi Jehochman, would you mind explaining the basis for this block in a little more detail? The fact that someone is focused on one topic is not generally a reason to block them, especially when it's been a short period of time. I see that there has been a topic ban of some sort, but it isn't clear to me if he is being said to have violated it or not. I believe the reason he is questioning WMC's involvement is that WMC proposed the ban and then asked a specific administrator to evaluate it. This may not be seen as abusive on Wikipedia, but to an outsider it would look strange that someone could bring a complaint and then also choose who evaluates it with no input from the other side. I have not followed this user, but I think a clearer explanation here would be helpful. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is endless disruption and violation of WP:BATTLE. Please read the COIN thread linked above the block reason. If you are not satisfied, please start a discussion at WP:AN and wait for a consensus to form. I will gladly join that discussion and provide additional details. Thank you. Jehochman Brrr 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I raised it at AN. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No misunderstandings

RE: Your comment at AN. I just want to make sure that there is no misunderstandings. "I do not agree to be silent" means that I intend to continue to edit the climate changes articles for the purpose for which I came here in the first place. I will, however, endeavor not to be a total drain on the system as some might see it for no benefit. Recent change patrol, while simplistic and mindless, is an important and tangible contribution in its own right, agreed? (On the value of recent change patrol.) --GoRight (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, RC patrol is good. It will help you get perspective. The biggest problem with editing controversial articles is the total loss of perspective that people suffer. You'll notice that when I involve myself in editing or administrating a controversial area, I go in for a while, and then I leave and do something completely different. This helps restore perspective. I've gone to, and then left, the following: waterboarding, homeopathy, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and probably some others further back. For whatever reason I rather like your personality and hope that you'll avoid getting yourself sanctioned over climate change. It's not worth it. Jehochman Brrr 04:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Proofreader77 AN/I

Hey, J. I'm guessing you were doing something...you know, NORMAL...tonight while I was nerding away at AN/I, but I wanted to direct your attention to the various replies I've made to TomBaker321. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't grossly misrepresented or misinterpreted anything you'd said, and that I hadn't put myself out on a major limb w/r/t community consensus on this report. I'm fairly new to this "acting like an admin" stuff, and I'm trying to proceed with caution--I'm so accustomed to "caution"= "silence", though, that everything I say feels like it might be too WP:BOLD. Your input, whether affirming or contradictory, would be most appreciated. Thanks! GJC 08:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You've done nothing to offend me. Carry on. Per note at the top of this page plain talk is encouraged here, or anywhere else you might encounter me. Jehochman Brrr 12:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
This is really long overdue. Awarded to Jehochman for making several difficult and controversial blocks of several established, but extremely disruptive users. Sometimes, I feel like Wikipedia is becoming more of a dramafest than encyclopedia. Keep up the good work! -FASTILY (TALK) 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
גם זה יעבור‎ Proofreader77 (interact) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Jehochman Brrr 19:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sellers

Since you asked, I was thinking of the earlier, Goon show Sellers. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'd never heard of that show, so I'll have to dig up some of those recordings, if they still exist. Usually I feel more like Inspector Clouseau. Jehochman Brrr 13:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I heard about it (endlessly, it seems) when I was growing up. If one ever wonders what brought about the overwhelming post-war shift that happened in British and (a few years later) American comedy, it mostly (some would say "all") came from the Goon Show. The Beatles' humour was more or less 100% Goon. Kubrick cast Sellers in Lolita and Strangelove owing (more or less) to what Sellers had done on Goon. Monty Python was but Goon "reloaded" :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Downloads. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It seems that much of the material was released on CD and download last year. My anniversary is next month so I dropped my wife a heavy hint. Thank you for the idea. Jehochman Brrr 13:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Was checking back to see if you'd got any answer to that email and noticed this. Have you ever listened to Round the Horne? This link should work or at least it worked when I was in Belgium. Kenneth Williams was wasted in those dreadful Carry On films. [Oh no! It's not on at present. What a nightmare.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your middle name?

It wouldn't be Teddy by any chance, would it?  :) --GoRight (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Evan. Jehochman Brrr 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. And I was so sure it was Teddy. You just strike me as a Teddy for some reason.  :) --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
But then he would be Jthochman. –xenotalk 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Neutralhomer

I notice that you recently reinstated this editor after he/she was blocked for an indefinite period of time.

I am fairly new to the game, and I am presently being harassed by Neutralhomer for being a disruptive editor. He/she is accusing me of vandalizing the articles on WRGB and WWOR-TV, when all I did was do some good-faith house cleaning. Based on what I've seen of Neutralhomer's history, this editor has no place in labeling someone else as a vandal. Please look into this. Thank you in advance. Station Agent 836 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears this user is a sockpuppet of the indef blocked sockmaster Rollosmokes, known for removing the "the" from The CW Television Network. Station Agent 836 has done the same thing buried in "vandalism removal". I have started an SPI on the user here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't sweat it, Homer. It looks like a pretty obvious vendetta against you to me. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Todd :) I am not too worried, just wanted to give Jehochman all the links to what is going on and get him caught up to speed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

Jehochman, I think you should refrain from using your admin tools in the GW debate. The latest block of JP is the second highly questionable indef block of a GW editor in the last month. Others (i.e. 2/0) have been policing this debate fine, while your actions have been questionable, so I think you should disengage from taking a further admin role. Please take this as a friendly request, not a criticism (I realize how difficult this debate can be). ATren (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, you've disliked me for a long, long time. Shall I pull up the diffs? Why don't you drop the axe already. Jehochman Brrr 12:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Where did that come from? Forget it then, feel free to remove this. If I have an issue I'll take it elsewhere. ATren (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry! When looking up the diffs, I discovered that I have confused you with somebody else with a similar username who I had incorrectly suspected of sock puppetry. In any case, you get your wish because I'm already not administrating global warming probation. However, I watch WP:COIN, and when I saw the obvious head hunting, I felt the need to do something decisive to stop it. Jehochman Brrr 13:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm often surprised, myself, at what turns out not to have been as obvious as I thought. I would like to clarify though that the main issue I have had here and with Drolz is the immediate jump to an indefinite block on editors where no one else had proposed a block of any sort, and no egregious abuse was apparent. I would normally understand the motivation, to ensure that a problem does not continue after a short block (although here I believe you actually said it was "permanent"). I'm not the only one making the point, however, that to meet a new editor with overwhelming force does not necessarily bring about the response you'd like. As others noted, it looks like you're treating the editor with contempt ("GTFO"), which to a reasonable person is offensive, regardless of what purpose it may serve. Which gets to my assumption that responsible organizations avoid acting offensively to reasonable people, at least where there are other options available. My two cents. Mackan79 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Shipwrecks and Ships merger discussion.

Hello. I'm posting this notice here since you're listed as a member of the Shipwrecks project. A merge proposal has been suggested on the project talk page here. Suggestions and ideas are welcome. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's going to be a disaster.  :) Jehochman Brrr 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings! I've been following various and sundry ANI extravaganzas, and noticed this topic.:-) Joined shipwrecks to clean up Joshua Slocum's entry. Late last year went through a period of reading only material related to shipwrecks. If you haven't already, you might enjoy Rousmaniere's Fastnet Force 10 on the subject of the disastrous 1979 Fastnet race. Oberonfitch (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps not "enjoy." LOL Oberonfitch (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, that book is one of my favorites. :) Back when I was single, I used to do a fair amount of yacht racing. I crewed for Michael C., who was a member of Ted Turner's crew during the '79 Fastnet race. Jehochman Brrr 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I crewed foredeck (racing! nothing better!) on a C&C 43' Lake Michigan prior to relocating to Colorado. Miss the water, especially miss sailing. Now reduced to reading and watching You Tube footage. Always a pleasure to meet another sailor. :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
My only competitive sailing these days is racing Vanguard 14s with the kids. Jehochman Brrr 19:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds wonderful. I regret not having been able to teach my kids to sail, but flaky winds in the mountains and ice cold ponds (reservoirs) don't really add up to child-friendly fun. But we do have wind. ;-) Oberonfitch (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

smile

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator:_Jehochman. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that this thread on ANI has been closed by an admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

An extra pair of eyes

Hi Jehochman, happy new year and I hope you had a good Christmas.
I began looking into what looked like a COI case in regard to User:DegenFarang‎‎. You can see my posts to them here. They came to my attention a couple of days ago when they and User:2005 made a series of posts about each other (loosely related to a content dispute on internet poker articles)[11][12][13][14][15][16]. It appears that Degen doesn't like our policies (see this at WT:V) or being advised of them. They also seem to have a bit of history.
Now within 3 days they've had a series of warnings from me re: disruption and appropriate etiquette (see the above diffs). Which resulted in them accusing me of bullying & wikilawyering[17]. They've also obviously fallen into the trap of using WP:IAR to justify their behaviour and deliberate ignorance of core policy.
In a nutshell, I'd appreciate a) a review on my interactions with Degen and another set of eyes on their IARing--Cailil talk 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, I'm swamped this weekend. You may want to ask one of my talkpage watchers for help. Jehochman Brrr 21:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jehochman - no problem--Cailil talk 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

qualification for abuse fighters

Knowing your earlier interest, please my comment at [18]. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA proposal finalization poll

I know you've not been on-wiki since your last comment there, but I incorporated your comment into the poll (how I understood it, anyway). What do you think? What I'm doing is a thankless task, but if I didn't act a 70% 'CDA' would have been polled yes/no at RfC, which (whether agreed with or not) looks like it could well be against the broader consensus. I just envisioned it being ripped into on technical grounds (ie not being comprehensive enough, fair enough, or properly representing discussion consensus) - actually druring the poll - a disasterous eventuality for any proposal. I think that the relative silence at the draft page over the past week was/is likely to turn into quite vociferous criticism at the poll itself.

Do you think a worthwhile CDA (and broadly consensus) proposal is still salvageable? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

PHG

Hello Jehochman. You were a party to the PHG arbcom case, so it seems best that I should say that I have told PHG he can go ahead and edit Imperial Japanese Navy as it is at featured article review. This was only ever very peripherally a "Franco-Mongol alliance" article, so I don't see that any great problems can possibly follow from this. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP and Prod

If you can get this to stick, I'll stop with the speedies. I tried prod, but people are so obsessed with "notability" that even when I prodded saying "remove this if sourced" people removed it with "sounds notable to me". We don't need to speedy these things. We do need a mechanism that says: "This hanging about unsourced indefinately is unacceptable. If you want to keep it, you sort it. If you don't, it goes soon."--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll see! [19] We've got a huge consensus forming at the RFC. That should make it stick eventually, if not now. Jehochman Brrr 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
See this

Did you read the proposed decision policy talk page before you made the change? While I personally support it and voted for it yesterday on the talk page, there is no way that reading the comments from the vote yesterday that there is clear consensus for the change as your comment asserts. So, I see this move as being rogue as Scott's.

I'm far less sure that a simple change of wording after a few hours of RFC means that this sticks. It was reverted once already.

And we need to make it clear that prod, sd, and Afd all have there place in the cleaning up a poor quality BLP. And that all of them need to be used for a broad variety of reasons not just completely unref BLP. Unfortunately, as is the case with removing unsourced material from article, some people are now claiming that is not permitted since the BLP article only highlights removing unsourced negative content. So, we need to make it clear that crappy content can be removed in the course of cleaning up BLP. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

When DGG and I agree on a deletion issue, that's a consensus. :p Jehochman Brrr 21:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

I was concerned that there might be an accidental mistake in your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. You say that the articles can be deleted after 5 days, but current PROD policy is for articles to have 7 days before being deleted. I was thinking that you might not have intended to set a different time for these prods to be deleted than other prods. If I am misinterpreting and you really did intend for these prods to have a shorter time before they are deleted, then I disagree with that idea, as I think it would cause confusion to have different sorts of prods expire after different amounts of time. Calathan (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. We don't want to have to create a separate process with five days instead of seven. That would be a tracking headache for no value. Jehochman Brrr 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have another question regarding your proposal and would appreciate a clarification. Does the proposal suggest that any user, who has added some references, may remove a BLP-prod? Or only an admin reviewing the prod? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any user. In fact, I think that requirement needs to leave wiggle room for users who might unknowingly remove a prod without adding sources. A few prods removed here or there without corrections would be fine. What we are concerned about are cases of hounding where an editor follows somebody else around and strips all their prods indescriminately, without any reasonable cause or attempt to make corrections. That behavior would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and we should make clear that blocks will be used if necessary to stop that. Jehochman Brrr 13:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I must admit that I have misunderstood the meaning of the proposal after initial reading of it (see my comment at the RfC page). Maybe it would be a good idea for you to clarify this point in the proposal's text since I was probably not the only one who misread the "may not be removed" part. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP Prod

Per the discussion of BLP prods, please keep an eye on User:Power.corrupts. Hipocrite (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blp prod template

Just fyi, I created {{Dated prod blp}}, which could be used together with the already existing {{Prod uns blp}}. Would that work for your proposed system? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Likebox

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_topic_ban_or_extended_block_of_User:Likebox. Pcap ping 11:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Big "Mo"

Granted the RfC is young, but it does seem a settled consensus is emerging.

  1. We need a prod-like process for new unsourced BLPs - asking the creator to source it, but giving a realistic deadline before deletion. (7 days seem the settled will). No removing the tag unless sourced.
  2. The backlog of unsourced BLPs needs care. Time is needed to allow fixing, but not unlimmited time. These need proded at some form of staggered rate (I've suggested over three months - but that could be six or even more - as long as there's a deadline somewhere).
  3. Summary/speedy deletion is not the way to go.

You and I have been on opposite sides of the speedy business. However, I don't think we are really that far appart. I've never felt speedy deletion was the best answer here, the answer was always an agreed process with time for fixing, it is just that after 4 years and no process, we needed something to change the status-quo. However, be that as it may, if we get a process now we'd both agree that there should be no speedy deletions merely on grounds of being unsourced (G10 and A7 still stand).

I'm wondering whether it is time to frame a detailed policy proposal, and whether you'd be the person to draft it. Despite the arbcom motion, I'd support such a policy also saying "once this process is agreed, it shall explicitly be against policy to use speedy deletion merely on the grounds of a BLP being unsourced". I've always thought that if there was another realistic, and timed, manner to deal with unsourced BLPs then speedy deletion would be unjustifiable. At that point the arbcom motion that so may object to would become redundant, and the community's new consensual process would take precedence.

It may be early to frame the policy, but policy changes tend to suffer from inertia, we have momentum after several years, perhaps time to act now. If now, I suspect this will slow to stop, at which point we may be back to chaos.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There really must be a bar on deprodding without sourcing. The principle is "to remain on Wikipedia, biographies must be sourced". Anyone unprodding without sourcing would be disrupting that process. At the moment you can unprod, because if an decision on deletion is controversial discussion is needed, but with a "unreferenced BLP prod" there would be nothing to discuss: it gets referenced or it dies. Fair enough, if there was a dispute over whether the references were adequate,that might be worth discussing. So the prod might say "do not remove unless you reference this article, or believe that the existing references are in fact adequate."--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the way forward is to set up a Community Remedy that says the Unreferenced BLPs are being cleaned up over the course of (one year or whatever). During that time a special editing restriction is in place preventing any BLP Prod templates from being removed unless sources are present. Articles with disputed sources go to Afd. Editors who disrupt will be warned once and then blocked. The advantage of this approach is that we don't change policy, and the restriction goes away once the problem is resolved. I think this will get more people involved and help reduce objections. Jehochman Brrr 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it needs a bit more detail than that. I'm not opposed to a timescale that's many months (a year at the absolute outside - I do think that's too long, but negotiable). However, I think the fear with what you suggest would be that someone might prod 2,000 articles in a day, which would mean that they'd all need fixed that week or they'd be deleted. I think the "prod with no removals unless sourced" works for new BLP articles, but we do need some realistic timetable for the backlog. Plus the restriction against deprodding without sourcing needs to remain in place, or we'll be back to square one later. The principle has to be "if you want BLP material to stay in wikipedia, itmust be (promptly) sourced. --Scott Mac (Doc) 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go Wikipedia:Unreferenced biographies of living people--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick question because I know you're busy

Hi, when coming across an BLP that is unreferenced, other than putting an unreferenced template on it, is there anything else that should be done? I come across them during patrolling and I'm not sure if just putting that template up is sufficient. I'd appreciate a little guidance on this since it's all new to me. Thanks, take your time, no hurry with this, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN

First, let me say thanks for your recent efforts at updating ITN- there seems to be a chronic lack of admins there and a small number have to work very hard. Anyway, as for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I've issued the credit but I haven't issued anybody the "substantially updated" because I can't find anybody who seems to have put "substantial" efforts into it. If you know someone who has, then feel free to template them or let me know and I'll do it on your behalf. Best, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 14:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I got distracted and forgot to give out the credits. Thank you for doing that. No, I don't know who should get that other one. Jehochman Brrr 14:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries, there's a lot going on atm. I don't mind doing the credits- I try to make myself useful since I can't edit the template itself. I'll leave it as it is since the "Contributors" tool shows nobody had made a large proportion of the edits. hopefully I'll see you around ITN/C in future... HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

[20] –Juliancolton | Talk 21:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it is a very reasonable proposal. I'd be inclined to be less reasonable, which means you are more likely to gain consensus than I would be!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WPCite -> Cite for Wiki -> Cite4Wiki

Your and Diego's WPCite tool metamorphosed into Cite for Wiki, but User:Unit 5, who made that variant, seems to have fallen off the grid, so I've picked up the ball again and turned it into Cite4Wiki. This time I've put it in WP itself, at WP:Cite4Wiki, so that others can see it and join the project over at Mozilla. I would add you directly, but I don't have your addons.mozilla.org address, so I can't. PS: I don't know who Diego is on here, so I can't contact him. Any pointers appreciated. If you're bored, there's already a "to do" list of stuff that needs work in the add-on. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up the ball on this! I will check that page. My greatest wish would be a version for Google Chrome. Jehochman Brrr 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


StumpWM

Ping. --Gwern (contribs) 21:40 16 January 2010 (GMT)

Thanks! --Gwern (contribs) 15:05 17 January 2010 (GMT)

Alexander Páez

Would you mind taking care of its comrades that I made the mistake of making the AFD first and then realizing after it was closed as no consensus (largely because it was a batch nomination) that WP:PROD was the better course of action? Jafeluv unilaterally deprodded the other 29 claiming that all of them have to go through AFD again, but he seems to have disappeared.—Ryulóng (??) 11:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, an article cannot be proposed for deletion after an AfD. You've got a special case here, but it would be too controversial for me to process all of these that way. Instead, I recommend WP:DRV. Jehochman Brrr 12:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
They're at AfD now, as was suggested in the earlier batch AfD. Jafeluv (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I dislike this make-work approach. Volunteer resources are not infinite. The whole group of articles fails to even assert notability. They all should have been deleted as WP:CSD#A7 in the first instance. Jehochman Brrr 14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping that from happening now. A no-consensus AFD and deproddings based on the fact that AFD existed should not prevent CSD A7 from being applied.—Ryulóng (??) 06:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thach Weave

Just to note that I, at least, am not involved in any coordinated activity on Lar's talk page. It's bad enough getting crap like that from people who don't know better. You do know better than to inflame. --Tasty monster 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you feel the need to come here and comment like that sort of proves my point. Jehochman Brrr 19:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope I don't sound obtuse, but what is your point? --TS 13:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (Tasty monster is an account I use from a mobile phone)
Tony, you're like a chameleon. I never know with what account or signature you'll pop up. My point is that it takes two sides to have a battle. When there's a battle both sides are wrong. One is wrong for being foolish. The other is wrong for arguing with fools. Jehochman Brrr 14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
An interesting argument. Pray tell, if one thinks that Wikipedia is an important tool being used by impressionable people to guide their understanding of how the world works and feel that some are abusing that tools to guide said impressionable people to believe wrong things, how do you make it such that articles reflect reality, as opposed to the ideological views of the other? Please note that I am quite certain that the other would write exactly the same thing here regarding the ideological views of the corpus. Do you just block everyone who is obviously here to push an agenda - either side? Do you reach consensus with everyone willing to negotiate, do you argue with fools, or do you declare that wikipedia has no real effect on how the world works? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ignore fools. Let them take enough rope to hang themselves properly. Jehochman Brrr 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, looks like you misread my comments at some point. I'm not engaged in any kind of battle. If you look at my comments on User talk:Lar [21] [22] and at User talk:2over0 [23] [24] [25] [26] you will be able to verify that for yourself. I very strongly support this probation because, while not quite at the stage of "a plague on both your houses", I think the area of editing global warming articles has become like trench warfare. I think we both see things very much the same way.
That is why your use of the term "Thach Weave" to describe the situation on Lar's user talk page is so distressing. I am not responsible for, nor do I agree with, comments by others on that thread (or this one, for that matter). If discussions between me and administrators are being hijacked for the purpose of attacking the administrators (and it looks, sadly, as if this is the case) I regret it and I reprove those doing it. Note that I have, far from attacking administrators working in this area, commended them and sought to widen the range of administrators doing so. For instance I asked LessHeard VanU, with whom I cannot be accused of often being in agreement, to look at one or two cases. I think administrator responses have been, broadly speaking, very good, though I agree with Lar that 2over0 could have paid more attention to some of the evidence of broader incivility by William M. Connolley in a recently closed case. I don't think that affair is anywhere near over and I find the ongoing promotion of hostility and partisanship by numerous parties here very ominous.
By the way I'm only using two accounts. I use Tasty Monster from a mobile phone where the risk of an accidental rollback makes my main account unsuitable. I'm nobody's chameleon. --TS 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I thought it over and now I think I am at the stage of "a plague on both your houses" (not you, Jehochman, but the factions involved in editing global warming articles). I've cleaned out my watchlist of global warming-related pages and I'll stop discussing the articles, their editing, and conduct issues arising. If I can be mistaken for a partisan so easily any good I'm doing in the area must be negligible, and it's not as if I wasn't expending considerable energy in an effort to help. This isn't a criticism of you, it's a result of realising how hard it is to maintain the degree of detachment needed to handle this very delicate situation. --TS 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The matter needs arbitration. It's not your fault. The troublemakers need to be removed conclusively, and then things may get better. By the way, my comment was meant to reflect that the Thach Weave is an excellent defensive tactic, nothing more. Yes, when you go into a battlezone, you better have some defenses or you will get shot down by somebody. The problem is navigating through without joining the battle. Very hard to do. Jehochman Brrr 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I don't want to walk around in what trustworthy and effective administrators like you obviously (and possibly rightly) believe to be a free-fire zone. Thanks for the heads-up. --TS 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't watch the State of the Union Address this week. Obama said that everybody recognizes global warming as a real problem, except a few fringe climate change deniers, and the whole Republican caucus snickered. Surreal. We have a real world political battle being played out on Wikipedia. It's about the money in petroleum and coal production. Jehochman Brrr 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't go there. No really. Don't go there. -TS 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Excuse the intrusion into the banter, but which "there," do you mean, Tony? Proofreader77 (interact) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There is the injection of politics to this explosive on-wiki situation. We should leave politics at the door. --TS 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Remember The Matrix, "There is no spoon."? ... There is no door. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The Matrix is a mundane and derivative work of fiction. Wikipedia is a rather superb encyclopedia. We work hard to keep it that way. Any questions? --TS 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That was one of those patented Prooreader77 paralogic dual-statements ... First part was a distractor to lull readers into a false sense of trajectory ... While the second presents the actual rhetorical thrust — there is no door separating this rhetorical realm from the broader cultural realm which includes the political. I.E., there is no door one could leave anything outside of.

Of course, we imagine there is a door within which we have a set of (preliminary, much to be improved for effectiveness) rules for rhetorical moves here. And so, the first part of the sentence does have meaning ... but only in retrospect ... after one has thought about all of this for a few days. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr --TS 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader: It would be misguided to expect anyone to accept your arguments if you express them at such tedious length. A little conciseness never hurt anybody. AGK 00:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The original version was concise. Longer version provided due to inability of reader to unpack ... I.E., I unpacked the suitcase for them. Feel free to repack the suitcase to original concise form. Proofreader77 (interact) 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
When I said "conciseness", I should instead have said "clarity". I was asking you to speak clearly, and not in the form of more-or-less obscure references. Just say what you mean, and be done with it, eh? AGK 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Much more precise, AGK. Bravo. :-) But in any case sometimes precision is good, and sometimes paralogic (#2) is good ... Sometimes sonnets work better. ;-) ... Depends on the rhetorical context/moment. Proofreader77 (interact) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No. This is about the end of fighting. We must not fight. It is not a battle. Nobody can win. It is just an encyclopedia. It isn't a blog. It isn't a forum. --TS 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Google delivers all to this rhetorical space ... What happens here is a natural result of that. We live in a rhetorical world. Proofreader77 (interact) 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously asking me to look at whatever nonsense Google turns up? Pull the other one. --TS 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Google global warming
Google climategate
See #1 results. Nonsense? Proofreader77 (interact) 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum ex googlii? Then you could power an automobile with a cheap powder added to ordinary water, but it's implausible that men lived and worked on the moon. Send me a postcard from whatever planet you live on. --TS 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no there outside of Google results. You arrived here like everyone else - via Google. Proofreader77 (interact) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
can you prove that point, not everyone arrives here via google in fact many people arrive here because of third party relationships that have occurred without the necessity of google intervention. Gnangarra 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about the 1,000 ... um, 500 ... well, 100 of us usually hanging around ... Or the hundreds of thousands that arive because they Google something, and Wikipedia is the #1 result? Proofreader77 (interact) 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No. There is an outside world. I live in it and one day we may send volunteers to rescue those poor people who are unable to find anything that isn't linked from google. If you need Google, you are doin it rong!!!!!1!!!! --TS 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Metacommentary

(more waywardness) Jonathan Earp?

Pondering Wikipedia Western musical ... and the pre-fame Wyatt Earp ... a bouncer in a brothel ... when he got an opportunity to perform a lawman-like adventure ... and the path was paved to the Wyatt Earp. (Note: From PBS.) Does that sound Jehochman-like? :-)

Meanwhile, here's a version of Western-tinged true love. Proofreader77 (interact) 08:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom-OK CORAL-fully loaded.


PS ArbCom logo design (challenge)

There's some talk about the possibility of replacing the scales with something well-designed. Given your insightful comment about ArbCom being a negotiation, what about a concept based on this tea ceremony at Burning Man. The bandana'd bikers are, of course, ArbCom members — the woman and man facing off respectfully (on their own mat) the disputants. (More simply, something like this) Proofreader77 (interact) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The logo should be two gunslingers. Jehochman Brrr 13:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that's what I call negotiatin', Mister Dillon [Earp]. ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

At User talk:AdmiralKolchak, your input is appreciated. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no feelings on this. The record looks clear, and there's nothing else going on that I know of. Jehochman Brrr 16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Any news from Carlos Ortiz Longo?

Hello Jehochman. A couple of weeks back you tried emailing the above person for me. I have a suspicion that the response so far has been a defeaning silence, but you never know, you might just have forgotten to check. Seems unlikely though ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no reply.  :( Jehochman Brrr 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
No need to be sorry, we can only try. Many thanks for your help here. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer—not so neutral any more

Hi. I wonder if you could keep an eye on the actions of User:Neutralhomer? There appears to be some systemic issues developing. Thanks.  HWV258.  09:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an honest error, at least for now. Jehochman Brrr 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why?

I am sorry, if you felt I was "snarky" toward you. I just tried to make a joke because it was kind of funny that after all SPI and CU that were run over me you came to conclusion that I do not look as a sock :) Maybe my sense of humor is very different than yours is. Still I cannot understand why did you strike out part of your statement "generally it is best not to threaten users with any process like Checkuser. If process is needed, just do it without threats. Also, calling a user a troll is invariably unhelpful." I thought it was your opinion in general not connecting to me, opinion of fair minded person and a fair minded administrator, the right opinion. So I guess now because I was snarky to you, chummer, your opinion has changed, and you believe that it is OK to call users a troll and threat them with CU? Oh well... Warm regards. I will bother you no longer.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

This edit summary is offensive, as well as a violation of WP:NPOVD. Please self-revert and please recognize that I make suggestions in good faith. THF (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate this, please don't remove the neutrality tag from Waterboarding. The ongoing debate is located at WP:NPOV/N. Swarm(Talk) 01:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil in that edit summary, just a statement of fact and policy around here. The whole "waterboarding isn't really torture" thing has been done to death recently and we are all a little sick of it. If you find such criticism uncivil, I suggest always reading all the way down an article talk page before contributing there. You might also note the probation tag there at the top. If you wish to place a tag indicating a dispute, please check the talk page of the article to see if you are re-opening a dispute that has been resolved recently. Such actions will likely avoid people making assumptions about you that you feel uncomfortable with in the future, and will definitely avoid the possibility of your being placed under Arbcom restrictions. Jehochman, don't change a thing. --John (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the post at WP:AN

Thank you for your post at WP:AN in response to the question I posted regarding CDA. Yesterday, I was hopeful the discussion would stay focused on the question and not spin off into a debate about CDA itself. I guess I was too optimistic :) I appreciate your answer to the question in the "re-focus" section. I think answering this question is an important step in understanding the impact CDA might have should be it be implemented. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed spelling for ya at the CDA Draft-page. Hope ya don't mind. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Further comment RE: your second post there

Re: this post. Jehochman, it might do for me to state to you, if you do not already know, that I am not a proponent of CDA. In fact, I'm quite strongly against it. That said, I am far, far, far more against an attempt to develop any inherently bureaucratic process using non-professional means. Doing so invites disaster, even if it is a good idea.

CDA, in any implementation, will require input on a variety of fronts in order to create the best process. To develop the best process, we must use some form of a model that analyzes the status quo with an eye towards improving it, developing requirements for the new process in light of the shortcomings of the status quo, developing a process that meets those requirements, analyzing potential impacts of the proposed process (and going back to earlier steps as necessary to refine the product until hazardous impacts are removed), implementation, verification, and maintenance of the ongoing process. Each of these steps in the process will involve discussion in regards to that step. There is an appropriate time for abstract, overall discussion regarding a particular new proposal for a new product or process. That time is not during discrete discussions regarding specific elements of the development process.

My question to WP:AN was specifically designed to address the "analyzing potential impacts" stage of this process. It wasn't designed to garner feedback on CDA overall. This isn't to say that I don't think such debate has merit. It most emphatically does. The point is such debate is inherently based on a better foundation when discrete steps in the process have had an opportunity to develop research and analyze output of the discrete discussions. These discrete discussions do not have to exist for abstract discussion and debate to exist, but are certainly tools to aid in such debate. I do think such debate has its place, but I'm attempting to resolve some of the discrete steps of the process rather than muddle it with an abstract debate. If we were to have an abstract debate overwhelm each discrete step of the process, the process is doomed from the start, even if it's the best idea the world has even seen.

I, like you, feel the proponents of CDA have been trying very hard to ignore, squelch, and otherwise criticize 'outside', disagreeing input on the process they are developing. In no way would I ever seek to mimic such atrocious behavior. I am not suggesting you not raise red flags when you see a need. I am suggesting that a discrete discussion on one aspect is not the place for it.

The proponents of this process have been, in my opinion, using a very unprofessional approach in developing this process. The process, as proposed, exists because of a general feeling that it would be a good idea. There's no basis in research and no basis in analysis of the existing status quo. There's no requirements for the process written anywhere that I can find. There's no specifications for the process itself. There's no means to evaluate, post implementation, if it is meeting expectations in the form of requirements and specifications. It is setting the stage for a massive, massive drama bomb. That's the only metric by which it currently will be evaluated. It is an undirected effort to solve an unspecified set of problems, declaring itself to solve at least some of what ails ArbCom, RfA and RfC. In short, it's being declared to be a miracle drug with not a drop of verifiability behind it.

Worse, the proponents effectively will not listen to outside input. This dooms their process. With this one question to WP:AN, I am hoping to highlight one of the major shortcomings of their development process and hopefully have an effect on someone who is willing to sit down and rethink their approach to the development model (or rather, lack thereof) being used. I think it's interesting that one of the outcomes of the answers so far has been what appears to be a delineation between types of admin work; non-controversial vs. controversial. This is a question the developers should be answering, but have not. Their answer instead is essentially "well, if you're a good admin you shouldn't have to worry about doing controversial things because you'll always do the right thing", which of course is woefully inadequate for a response as it fails to recognize that doing the right thing in controversial areas is, by definition, going to upset swaths of editors. In the very least, the developers may at least begin to recognize that there will be an impact on administrators that work in controversial areas should CDA be implemented, and that effect may be wholly undesirable.

Thanks for reading. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I also support some form of CDA, just not what they've developed, nor can I support the process that they have used: an echo chamber (you are with us or against us). Jehochman Brrr 22:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been directed to this conversation by Hammersoft.
Hammersoft - I'll reply to you in my talk, but reading above I can see you are still wrongly portraying the arguments people are putting to you. I think you need to widen your eyes and read them better - you are too focused on stepping backwards and doing forms of model testing that frankly seem alien in the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia tends to talk, trial and change in that 'organic' kind of way the articles (slowly) improve by.
Jehochman - there are no "they"! There is no CDA CabalTM - if there was for a just tiny bit in early Jan, you can thank me for busting a very small bubble. Bad time of year. Since then, you two (and sometimes Tenofalltrades) have insisted there is an 'us/vs' them atmosphere - but who else has? (apart from people who have mistakenly followed your constantly repeated claims - and I can prove that at least one person has too). It is a bogeyman created for 2 particular purposes if you ask me, and every other day one of you guys seems to create a new section/comment basically saying there is this rude cabal that doesn't listen to people, and we are all doomed. I'm the only brash one really, and I barely get on with any one else who is pro CDA. We are all different editors. There was a snowball with CDA, but there is no cabal. Maybe a couple of pro-CDA dicks.
Basically, you have both been roundly disagreed with, sometimes on points that can't really be addressed any more right now: like swapping to other forms of Admin Recall. Maybe you will have your day some other time. I actually have sympathy for all three of you (as I'm sure I've said), but have no time for the way you've gone about things. Unless you have legions of invisible support (which we all do of course), it seems your panic-button negativity has precious little support. And certainly no consensus. "Us v them" makes "us" look as big as "them", but you are not! And though you won't admit it, you clearly are worried about CDA becoming a reality. Don't be. If it proves problematic, it will be altered and eventually dropped. Why not save your doom-laden comments till then? If you are right you will look very empowered. Right now you are risking a barn-full eggs on your face. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Epandeur de Fumier
Eyes glazed over and I am reacting badly to your bloviations. You didn't address my concerns on the merits: (1) The current proposal has no protection against gaming, and is a useless, degenerate case. (2) The discussion has been endless, and has not been welcoming to outsiders. What you think about me doesn't matter at all. Now leave and don't return to my talk page. I don't like the way you're talking at me here. Jehochman Brrr 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Peanut gallery commentary
  • Noting J's comment re problematic nature of RfA/game-ability vs ArbCom. (Adding that to previous useful comment re idea that ArbCom is a negotiation.) P.S. Excuse semi-rude implications of image commentary added at right — not meant to be a general comment regarding all ideas, but rather the amount of perhaps less-than-necessary interactive attention required to process. Proofreader77 (interact) 02:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

CDA and RFA

What about the idea of a sort-of continuous RFA? People have a page (transcluded or some such) to RFA where others may register - and continuously update - their opinion on whether or not the user in question should be an administrator. If the percentage support goes above (say) 60% and stays there for two weeks, the user becomes an admin. If the percentage goes below that bar and stays there for two weeks, the user simply stops being an admin.

A painless return to the "no big deal" ethic with no real possibility for gaming (in both directions) and no need for any big fuss. 66.240.20.113 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a recipe for bad governance. We want people to do what's right, not what's immediately popular. I've blocked 500+ users. What if each of those users returns and votes against me. They are highly motivated to do so. The thousands and thousands of other users (not to mention readers) who been saved the bother of vandalism will not even know about the good that I did. The benefits are defuse; the anger is concentrated. This will create a strong negative bias in the voting. No thanks. If an admin screws up, start an RFC. If the community is united against them, they will resign. Nobody wants to be an admin if they are not wanted. In border cases, a follow up trip to ArbCom is useful. Jehochman Brrr 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Enjoy Your Break

If you are in the Mid-Atlantic, enjoy the snow too. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to be enjoying rotator cuff surgery. (Hurt my arm in a bizarre jump rope accident some years ago.) Jehochman Brrr 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I am now ever-so-much-more-grateful to have declined the jump rope part of boxer training at the gym (having never seen a jump rope used during a boxing match, I had felt it was surely a boxing gym hazing ritual — well, that and my complete infelicity with the damned thing) ...

    Of course we all wish you a speedy recovery nonetheless ... however you could, of course, use this as an excuse to hire an attractive [competent] typist, and thereby shorten the period of our sadness at your absence. (Too much? :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 19:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • OUCH!! Well, try and enjoy the snow (if you have any in your area). Hope you feel better soon, dude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

One for the records

Do you recall the discussion of Damiens.rf and the leaving of twinkle-matic messages on user talk pages? Well this wins prizes, but not in a good way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Redux

I'm trying to recollect how spates of image deletions are best dealt with... but this [27] history seems to have chased off a frustrated good faith editor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops. See above section. Great minds think alike? You're the go to guy for this kind of thing apparently Jehoch! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. You know how to explain this. Put on your politest demeanor and just lay the facts on the line. I'm focusing on work now so that I can take a couple weeks off. Jehochman Brrr 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. I didn't see the "On Break" sign until after I had commented. No worries. I'll take care of it with my usual delicacy and deft touch for this kind of thing. Cheers. Have fun. See you when you get back. I hope I can recognize you with the tan??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

You have been mentioned here (by THF). Thanks, Verbal chat 10:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Carry so far"?

How on earth did I carry "so far" my "personal opinion"? First, it's not my personal opinion; second, I made one suggestion about NPOV policy, and one suggestion about BLP; when there was no consensus about either, I withdrew from the discussion within 24-48 hours. Why does that call for AE -- unless AE is being used to deter people from ever participating on talk pages? THF (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You can resolve this easily. Just post to AE that you'll respect the consensus, even if you disagree with it. Then go edit the article up to WP:GAC or WP:FAC standards, if you want to make a point. :) Jehochman Brrr 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding AE complaint

Courtesy notification: I'm mentioned you by name in my closure of the recent AE complaint concerning the edit war at Waterboarding over an NPOV tag. Diff of my statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=342387431. Regards, AGK 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that you did, in fact, revert the tag back in or out more than once. To be precise, three times. My view of your contributions to the dispute over the tag has suddenly grown dimmer. One question for you: when you said "see talk", to what discussion were you referring? (Absent anything compelling, I intend to apply the same sanction to you as I did to Verbal and THF. We've had quite enough of this "revert first; discuss second" approach to contested subject areas.) AGK 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have not edited this article for years. I was not aware of anything that would restrict my behavior. If you tell me now that a 1RR was in effect, which I was not aware of, I will honor it. I think you should not reward those who game the rules by playing the hyper-technical, power-loving enforcer. Our administrative actions always need to be guided by fairness, and a compass of what's best for Wikipedia. Also, can you give me diffs of the three purported reverts, I only remember two. See above, I'm on wikibreak and may not respond promptly, especially on work days. Jehochman Brrr 11:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, "See talk" refers to the talk page discussion about this very subject. I had intended to leave a comment at the time, but I got dragged away by real life concerns. In this edit which you cited, you'll notice that I lost Internet connectivity, as my browser only transmitted part of the text. Somebody else fixed that for me. I had wanted to leave a talk page comment at the time, but it didn't happen under the circumstances. I caught up with the discussion a couple hours later and left two comments. My revert had been overtaken by events, so I did not address my revert specifically. Jehochman Brrr 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Checking the talk page and probation link, I see no evidence whatsoever that a 1RR restriction is in effect. Could you provide me with a link if that's what you meant? Otherwise, I've never sanctioned an editor for edit warring based on just two reverts. (More typically, an edit warrior does 3+ reverts over a span of more than 24 hours, and continues in spite of warnings.) Your frustrations with "revert first, talk later" should not play any role in choosing sanctions; when frustrated get WP:TEA, don't throw around sanctions to make a point. Mindless counting of reverts is not a good way to administrate. 3RR is not an entitlement and you are welcome to warn me to not edit war. I think more than one revert is not best practice; I try to stick to 1RR at all times, but in this case I made an exception, perhaps unwisely. However, you should not equate my extra revert with tendentious editing, a much more serious problem. Jehochman Brrr 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked what you did to Verbal (talk · contribs). That was totally out of line. Blocking a good faith editor for two reverts without any sort of warning is an abuse of power. That's madness. Go take a break, you are losing perspective, severely. Jehochman Brrr 13:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're threatening, AGK, to block me on Feb 7 for two reverts I did on Feb 3? Blocks are preventative, not punitive. First, I have not broken any rule. Second, even if I had, I stopped a long time ago, and have since said that I won't edit war. Jehochman Brrr 14:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Will you please stop clouding the issue with emboldened statements and instructions for me to "go take a break"? I'm not going to let revert warring go unchecked on any complaint that I process at AE—even if it is by an editor as established as yourself, or by one who I have interacted with quite a lot. You reverted where you should have requested administrator assistance, and that I can't excuse. AGK 00:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Mr. High and Mighty, next time you make a mistake, you can be confident I'll stick up for you as much as these folks here (and myself). We don't block good faith contributors without warning when they make two reverts. That's too much. Everybody is entitled to make a few small mistakes. When I have more time, I'll give you more extensive feedback. For now this matter is resolved. Jehochman Brrr 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

review an ani thread

Hi Jehochman - sorry to bother you but I opened an ANI thread about User:Caesarjbsquitti's soapboxing about 2 days ago. He's made an allegation of COI on my part. Could you review the situation. I'll be asking another couple of people too in the hope that the wider community might show a little interest. The thread is here--Cailil talk 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration

Hello, this is to inform you that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich

Hello, Jehochman. I'm not sure whether you're active or not, but if you are, could you look into Je suis tres fatigue (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich? You once dealt with the sockpuppeter Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs), so I think your input would be greatly appreciated to prevent the likely block-evading sockpuppeter's disruptive behavior. Thanks.--Caspian blue 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman/Archive_18&oldid=1140759051"