User talk:Jehochman/Archive 11

Giano's 72hr Block
Hiya Jehochman. Nobody's trying to drive away/provoke Giano. He's just gotta learn to control his temper. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what thoughts go through people's minds. The practical effect is to either provoke or drive him off.  The ArbCom are clueful individuals (or they are supposed to be); they should realize this. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Giano has been driven off. If my memory serves me right, he's left Wikipedia in a huff, many times before. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that when he returns he will not be calmer than before, and they will find excuses to place an escalating series of blocks. See User:Geogre/Comic for an explanation of the dynamic. Jehochman Talk 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Tis up to Giano, as it always was. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish that people would not provoke users who have challenges keeping their cool. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a price Wikipedia pays, for being a collaborative project. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, it's all everyone else's fault for existing in the first place. I can roll with that, actually. It's never his fault. I always knew the autoblocker had it in for him. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, you've made the statement a couple of times now on Giano's talk page that Giano's incivil remarks were only "blowing off steam on his own talk page". The ArbCom's block notice includes at least two diffs in that are to other pages: one to AN and one to Teresa's talk.  Giano wasn't just blowing off steam &mdash; he was looking to goad the community into a response to his rudeness.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said, Giano's gotta learn to control his temper. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This comment made me laugh out loud. Do you really believe "that this prevents treating Giano as a special case", Jehochman? Because I don't know any other editor that can only be blocked on explicit written agreement of the Committee, which rather means that it ensures Giano is treated as a special case, rather than preventing it. Rockpock  e  t  23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that ArbCom have made a thorough mess of this situation. Giano should be treated the same as any other editor.  If somebody is blocked, we normally allow them to vent on their own page.  Once Theresa blocked him for doing that, naturally, he was quite pissed off when he returned, so he pushed the envelope further, ensuring that he'd get another block.  The shame is that Theresa should have just calmly explained the autoblock problem, and then gone off to fix it.  That would have probably avoided this whole, needless drama. Jehochman Talk 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, Giano created his own situation. I think he enjoys the attention & the drama of it all. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and I wanted to publicly tell you Jehochman that allowing a user (even if its a good editor otherwise) to call admins stupid and idiots and saying "they're just letting off steam", is definitely not the right thing to do. Thats equivalent to allowing an employee of the company come to work naked one day and say "Its ok, he's just relaxing today." If he was to go away which I'm sure he will not, someone else more polite will come and take his place. Drama like this and abuse like this, if allowed to stay, infact scares away potential new users. Also we dont have to be scared of Giano and say "we cant provoke him, the Wikipedia logo will break down". Well again, new users will come and take his place. We definitely dont have to be afraid of abusive users. Its just a fundamentally wrong principle. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If we treat volunteers as fodder, I don't think that will encourage new ones. Somehow, I think Giano will tell a lot of people how petty and power concerned some wikifolk are, and that will hurt us because it is apparently true.  We need to stop admins and especially arbs from lording their status over ordinary editors.  In particular, we need to watch out for those who enjoy power and status more than writing articles. These are easy to spot by checking their mainspace contributions. Look for editors who are minimally active in mainspace or who primarily revert vandalism. Jehochman Talk 02:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But as we've already noted, Giano isn't an ordinary editor. A combination of his envelope-pushing nature and ArbCom's unwillingness to deal with him made him special. And like the admins and Arbs who lord their status over the ordinary editor, Giano has exploited his special status to lord it right back, and say and do things that the ordinary article editor would have been blocked for a long time ago without a peep of protest from anyone else. From the perspective of anyone wronged by the establishment, Giano's battle may well have been righteous in taking it to those that currently wield power. But lets not pretend that it was anything other than a battle for power. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground, so couching this as bad admins vs. good article writers is overly simplistic. Rockpock  e  t  03:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that battling is not the way forward, but speaking plainly should be encouraged. I am very concerned that the Arbs and their hangers-on have been pushing the envelope by using their power to stifle dissenting views.  Jehochman Talk 03:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I agree with that. But this was rather inevitable, I would have thought. You give a body of people certain powers and ask them to exercise those powers. If you then have an individual or small group of individuals who set out to purposefully challenge that body (or a number thereof), using - sometimes questionable - tactics. When those tactics under question fall within the judicial remit of the body that is being challenged, there is only going to be one outcome. We are seeing the stifling of dissenting views, under the premise that the views are presented in a disruptive way. But if the views were not expressed that way, the argument goes, then they not effect change. Further, if the body were not dealing with that disruption, then they would claim they are not being doing the job they were asked.... Its completely circular. I don't pretend to know how to break the circle, but I recognize that its there. Rockpock  e  t  04:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, believe me: if he goes and tells potential new users that he was blocked, they will come and see why he was - for calling admins stupid and idiots for some unintentional mistake that doesnt happen often (some ISP deciding to route all traffic through a single IP, or whatever it was that Thatcher explained). If he's not blocked then a potential user will come and see that admins are being refered to as stupids and idiots and that, people are allowed to get away with it. The potential user will get a bad impression of wikipedia and never come back. I've stated already that I dont have favourable opinions of the autoblock-blocking admin but I'm not letting that effect my judgement here. The sequence of events was:
 * Admin blocks an IP and causes an autoblock for a user (unintentional)
 * User gets angry and calls the admin 'stupid' and 'idiots' and trolls (among other things, repeatedly links to WjB's edit page? Is that not trollish?)
 * User gets warned for civility by another admin but does not heed the warning
 * He gets blocked for continuing to remain uncivil.
 * I see the sequence of events is completely fair. What you are saying is that no, he shouldn't have been blocked. Why not Jehochman? Can I address you as an idiot and call you stupid and get away with it? Tell me its ok and I will do that. I'm serious. Say its ok and I will address you like that from now. If its ok not for me to call you stupid or an idiot and that if I do that to you and you think I should be blocked, then it was not OK for Giano too also to call another admin stupid or an idiot. This is not about ArbCom or some people enjoying their power or status. Its about stopping rude users from calling other users idiots and stupid and discouraging this behavior. He's not a little 4 year old who needs some gentle treatment and coaxing and begging to kindly please understand the issue and what happened. He's an adult and he knows that personal attacks are not allowed here. If he has temper tantrums and he's going to dish it out on others, he needs to stop coming on the site and let some other polite user take his place. And once again, you cannot forgive a serial killer just because he bakes good cake. If he's been writing articles, that doesn't mean its ok for him to abuse other users. This is how corruption spreads in a real life scenario and chaos multiplies. New users see this drama and they see an admin saying "Its ok for another user to call an admin an idiot", what would they think about the treatment they might get from the same user given that they were going to join as a simple user and not an admin? They wouldn't join the site naturally. Once again, tell me what you think of me calling with those labels and abusive words. If I got blocked for you calling you those names then I might complain that "this is just about the hunger and misuse of power". Giano is like other trolls. He abuses people and has repeatedly gotten blocked for incivility and divides the admins like over here who have previous unfavorable opinions of other admins or of the ArbCom. That again should not be your reason to take the side of an abusive user. It just boils down to the same issues and its really simple - if anyone ignores warnings for incivility, they are always blocked. By the way, this is a good idea but once again, the absence of the clarity was not an excuse for anyone to loose their temper. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am very concerned that the Arbs and their hangers-on have been pushing the envelope by using their power to stifle dissenting views. Which arbs and what hangers-on do you mean, Jehochman? I've been raking Charles Matthews over the coals all the last month and gave Bainer a talking-down yesterday. Took a few jabs at Jimbo last week too. ;) Nobody's stifling my dissent.  Cheers,  Durova Charge! 04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They should ask themselves that very same question, battle maiden. You present your views appropriately, so it is quite hard for anyone to find a chink in your armor. While Giano's packaging was not best practice, he did have a point that something was very wrong with the autoblock situation and that it needed to be fixed. Time was wasted chastising him that should have been spent fixing the problem. Had that happened, and the situation been calmly explained to him, I think there would have been a better result. Jehochman Talk 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Suppose for a moment that someone accidentally blocked half of San Diego. Would it help or hurt the situation to insult people?  I really don't suppose the Arbs and their hangers-on are searching for pretexts to find chinks in my armor.  Still wondering who those people are.  Anyway, you seem to have Giano's ear so let him know there's a foolproof way to avoid civility blocks.  It has something to do with stretching one's legs and pouring another cup of coffee before clicking 'save page'.  I prefer French roast and a French press.  Cheers,  Durova Charge! 05:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * People should stop trying to change Giano or anyone else for that matter. Either accept him the way he is, or say that our community can't include people like him.  On the other point, you've said yourself that the best admins have a little bit of troll blood.  Some of our Arbs are quite skillful in the troll arts. It appears that at least a few of them are master baiters.  Poor Giano is not one to turn the other cheek when provoked. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been on Wikipedia for over 3yrs. I've never once felt bullied by Administrators or Arbitrators. Infact, I haven't had any problems with them. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! I am very glad that our efforts have provided you, at least, with a productive editing environment. Which are your favorite artices? Jehochman Talk 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in to mostly political articles, but overall my edit are little ones (spelling correction, grammar; etc). GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available here. is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

grey problem
stop vandalizing azad kashmir with pov terms like POK and there wont be any problems my biased indian american freind 81.158.129.185 (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC) unless this indian pov pusher ends his anti pakistan terms on azad kashmir article i will continue to respond to his pov games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.129.185 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More problems with vandal ip User:81.158.129.185 et al. a.k.a. User:Nangparbat
This ip vandal sock is on a revert run. I have violated several 3RRs trying to stop them, so I can no longer revert their edits. Can this user be blocked again for their ban evasion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, an WP:CIV violation Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you remind me please, who is the puppetmaster? Also, don't edit war with them. Let their  edits stand for the time being. Jehochman Talk 00:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Nangparbat

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User_talk:William_M._Connolley this might be of use too Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please copy the info in whatever format it currently exists to a WP:SSP report so we have something easy to link to, and a solid basis for placing blocks, or better yet range blocks, to shut them down completely. Let's take a few extra minutes to do a thorough, unassailable job of identifying the socks.  We may want to have a checkuser help place range blocks to

re: EmilEikS
I'm not sure if you recall this, but you blocked Fiandonca after Rlevse determined that =  =. You said you didn't block EmilEikS to allow him to participate in the RfC, which he refused to do and instead "retired", effectively killing any outcome on the RfC. Since then, the IP has popped up, editing the same articles as Emil, and protesting the same issues, using the same arguments and bad faith accusations, and trying to involve adminstrators, all of which is noted at User talk:Kingturtle. The IP admitted here that he/she is using the same computer as Fiandonca and EmilEikS, and like Fiandonca/Emil, make references to their "serious injury book" file they've compiled, made overt accusations of a "cabal of negative, personal editors [who are] persecuting Emil Eikner and the other users of this computer." Your blocking was included, since apparently I am "so powerful that she has managed to get Emil and Fiandonca unfairly assessed as "sock puyppets" by an administrator who showed heavy bias in doing so." In any case, since this anonymous editor, who calls himself "Anonymous", has clearly admitted to editing from the same place and continues the problems that were present before, what should or can be done? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that the same IP that left the note at User talk:Kingturtle is the one who removed your sock puppet notice from the EmilEikS talk page . According to WP:SHARE, Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. Since Fiandonca and Emil were determined to be the same, wouldn't this qualify as an ongoing block evasion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman, you recently requested a user check and subsequently blocked a sockpuppet account (User:Fiandonca). This was related to Requests for comment/EmilEikS, which has been closed. The reason given for closure is "User retired on 1 December 2008." A few days ago, I encountered two anonymous IP accounts (217.209.96.57 and 217.21.225.53). These accounts stood out to me because they were used to making comments on article and user talk pages and signed "Anonymous", or in at least one instance, Thurgood Rosewood. The edit that concerns me the most, however, is this one. I am a fairly new editor and would like your advice/opinion regarding this, as I don't want to pursue anything further unless I'm sure that this is possible sockpuppetry. Thank you kindly, momoricks  (make my day)  12:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This appears to be based on behavior.  They are allowed to retire their account and edit as an IP if they wish.  However, they may not edit disruptively.  There must be evidence of disruption or some other problem before any block is applied to the IP. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See my notes in the section above, article edits aren't disruptive as yet, but talk page accusations, attacks and issues have become so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, Jehochman. momoricks  (make my day)  00:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple questions: 1) According to WP:UP, WP:PA applies to user pages as well as article pages; therefore, don't some comments on User_talk:Kingturtle violate the policy against personal attacks (examples: "By an editor who according to edit history has tried to remove the whole photo once and then chipped away more and more at the caption content? Personal agenda?" and "If not outright vandalism, this looks like just a touch of spite to me in any case.")? Or, at the very least, disruptive behavior? 2) Specifically how much and what kind of disruptive behavior warrants administrative action, such as a stern warning? Thank you, momoricks  (make my day)  03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are comments that jump off the page in their wrongfulness. The reaction to reading them is how can somebody say that about another person?  I am not getting that feeling with these comments.  Kingturtle is more than capable of stopping an IP being incivil on their talk page. Jehochman Talk 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for clarifying that. momoricks  (make my day)  09:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Kingturtle isn't replying to this whatsoever, except to the first post to say he responded with his opinion on an image cropping. Pointing out obvious sock behavior is called "reprehensible", accusations of cabalism and persecution, all of that is character attacks upon more than just myself, but others who have had issues with this behavior. This started from a scathing attack by Emil and Fiandonca upon me because I removed a flag icon from an infobox, but it's my behavior - "pompous treatment, then outright tantrums" - after an all out assault and obvious sock behavior, that is at issue? Their charade continues, right up to this, trying to bargain to get a block lifted and taking up the old banter of how their organization is embarrassed and hurt by Wikipedia reaction to bad behavior, but oops, we signed in as EmilEikS, and this, which was a weak attempt to cover up the sign-in error and thus the illusion that there is more than one person at work here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, the best response is no response. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Jehochman, but these last difs from Wildhartlivie, esp. the resigning one, shows to me that this editor is trying to game the system. I think the sock should be blocked as user Emil as it seems like an obvious WP:Sock invasion.  Just want to share my opinion here.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An IP can only be blocked temporarily, and I think doing so will create more disruption, rather than less. The main account has been inactive since December 1, so I don't see the point of blocking that one either.  Could somebody direct the IP's attention to this thread and ask them to respond, politely.  My opinion could change quickly if they come here bearing assumptions of bad faith. Jehochman Talk 14:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will inform the IP since I don't think I should be felt as a threat to him/her. Just to note for you though the IP in question commented above.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Hochman: What is your question, sir? There is no bad faith, nor do I believe I have displayed anything but earnest concern about the reputation of English Wikipedia. Also pls see my comment above under "My two cents." We are very interested in - 1 - getting all this animosity to cease and - 2 - helping to improve English Wikipedia in any way we can: content, attitudes, reputation, workability. Sincerely, /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PS We have followed the link to "no response" which you left above and consensus here is that I ask you, with all due respect, if you meant by it to label me a "troll" or a "vandal", or if that was a mistake of some kind, or if we have misunderstood? Appreciate your polite explanation here. Again, sincerely, - /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, please note that the account was inactive until it was used to make this edit on December 15, 2008. If I recall correctly, you did not block this account when the User:Fiandonca account was blocked in order to give EmilEikS the opportunity to post a response at Requests for comment/EmilEikS. He did not respond to the RfC and instead retired the account, perhaps to avoid further scrutiny for his incivility. momoricks  (make my day)  01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr Hochman: Here is the full text of that edit completed a few seconds later. /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That was one big "oops!", wasn't it? Look, here's the problem. Everyone has had opportunity to read what you've posted at User talk:Kingturtle, including Kingturtle, who said "There is no cabal. What you are feeling is the sensation of being on the minority-side of an opinion. Learn a lesson in that you are no always right. And it is okay. Learn to deal with such rejection maturely and responsibly. Learn to deal with such rejection by not going on the offensive, by not feeling defensive and by not personally attacking others." and "There is no need whatsoever for "the editor above" to do anything of the sort. There is a need for you to stop pestering other users simply because you don't get your way." Whether you are Emil, or Fiandonca, or the man in the moon, it's been established that you are all editing from the same place, with the same narrow set of objectives and goals, which is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet situation (per WP:SHARE. Please stop this, because you don't like an editor or editors, or an outcome, there is no need to continue your battle. It is tiresome and non-productive. Because you've marginally toned down the offense doesn't make it any more productive, let's please move on from your attacks. And for the record, "reprehensible theories", charges of cabalism and persecution against you/them/he/she/whatever, and shopping for backing is contentiousness, whether the editing is on an article page or a talk page. Please just stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To the Wikimedia administrator J E Hochman: How long is this long-running and vehement persecution of a number of Swedish contributors (all of whom are known to me as very good people) by the editor Wildhartivlie and her documented friends going to continue and is anyone responsible ever going to put a stop to it? The time has come. You may reply, Mr Hochman, to Thurgood Rosewood. If you would like more information about me, you may enter an email address here and I will be glad to write to you. No one else need reply as I am only interested in the views of an accredited administrator. /Thurgood Rosewood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.225.53 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny, Emil was fond of saying "don't talk to me" and instructing people not to respond to you, too. Vehemence is solely in your POV, and you are not being persecuted, although sometimes the feeling of being persecuted is common with some people whose opinion is in the minority, as Kingturtle said. Kingturtle isn't among that group you have said is part of my "cabal", but he, too, has told you to stop. What are you trying to accomplish here? As long as you are editing from the same IP as Emil, Fiandonca, etc., to me, your editing is under question. The IP would determine sock/meatpuppetry, along with a narrow range of article interest and objectives, not just saying "I'm not." That you have stated you have a file of transgressions by myself and a few others, which Emil also maintained, is a clear indicator of sameness. Emil was signed in here yesterday, and on Commons this morning, then you posted this and made edits on the same group of articles that Emil edited. Red flag?? Um, yeah. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the harm in walking away from this conflict? Which articles are going to suffer.  Let me know and I will watchlist them. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for instance, a discussion over an image on Talk:Mae West would be an issue. The Mae West article contains an image of West's crypt, but the image also contains the person in whose support the IP's myriad of names have edited and seem to work at least tangentially with, from which I removed a flag icon (which was the catalyst for a frenzied attack by both previously identified socks), and have constantly asserted the article is an embarrassing mess that can't seem to be finished (?). I removed the image because I don't feel it is visible enough for what it is and emphasized the person in the image rather than the crypt. It was returned, but the name of the person was removed from the image caption, replaced by "a fan" (by another uninvolved editor), and then removed entirely by the IP. I cropped the image to just show West's crypt, which was protested by IP et al, and a discussion on cropping it further ensued. Inexplicably, the IP did this, rationalizing that "requested connection to photo's person added /Anonymous at this IP:). The discussion on the article talk page did not address that in any way, shape or form. Note, this person wasn't personally involved in any capacity in West's career. Fortunately, User:Kingturtle did revert this. This is the type of problem that we contend with and why the editor(s)'s behavior is at issue. The other issue, at least for me, is that everyone seems to agree that this is the same person, User:EmilEikS, who said he was retiring. He retired rather than take part in a request for comment on his behavior. That he seems to have returned, only using an IP, and continues to complain about the same things he did prior to retiring is a huge issue to me, since his main complaint continues to be my secret "cabal" and the continued references to the "serious injury file" they have. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You have an RFC, and the user chose not to participate. That feedback still is valid.  If the user continues against community norms, next time let me know and I will start a thread on WP:ANI to have them restricted from areas of the encyclopedia where they cause trouble.  In the meanwhile, I suggest you walk away and give them a chance to calm down.  If they follow you, let me know and I will block them. Jehochman Talk 16:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the edit conflict. I can walk away from this page, but I won't walk away from the Mae West article, and today's issues there are part of the reason why. He/they/whatever ran to Kingturtle's page when I cropped the image, claiming personal agendas, serious shocked at the poor quality of the article (have they LOOKED at other articles on Wikipedia?), cabalism, urging a bureaucrat to intervene for their cause, etc. That was without my speaking up. It is enough to make people quit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst
I need help checking references on gamma ray burst pre-WP:FAC. If any lurkers here would like to help, I will bake you cookies. Jehochman Talk 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What checks are required? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have one reviewer, Cryptic C62, who has been helping me with copy editing, as can be seen at Talk:Gamma ray burst. We now need to check that the coverage is complete, and we should probably also check the references to make sure they support the statements made. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Working.... Fritzpoll (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the infamous Nangparbat
I have the early makings of a sock report. I figure you should see it. User talk:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader. The list of IPs speak for themselves, but I will complete the report after my finals (last one is Wednesday afternoon PST). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.158.236.59 This ip is on the rampage. Once again here is there rough draft SSP report User talk:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 3
The page has been created by User:Jimfbleak. If you want to co-nom, I would be greatly appreciative. Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 3. Thanks in advance. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really bother me too much, but some of the opposes are just absurd. Oppose based on being a "Conformist". Now that one really got me. Everyone is a conformist to some degree, so I really doubt the accuracy of that oppose. That and the opposes tend to leach off of each other. 3 bad CsD tags a long time ago got about 20 opposes from people who can't even see them or the other csd tag's I've placed. Oh well. I'll just have to try again some time down the road. We gave it a good run. Thanks for the nomination. No matter what they said, I thought it was a great nomination. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work and see if you could find an article of interest capable of WP:GAC or WP:FAC. Perhaps Black metal, or something about aviation or any other topic that interests you.  Spend a few months working on content, allowing any issues to slip further into the past, and then try again.  Next time I recommend responding a maximum of one time to any oppose, and only responding to a small number of them.  If people make an unreasonable objection, have confidence that enough of us will see through it and come to your defense.  See DefendEachOther. I am glad you did get more than 50% support, which is itself an accomplishment.  Jehochman Talk 17:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR
An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom comments
Arbcom comments sections are not for threaded discussions. I have made the small correction you requested, but I have removed your comment, which I include below so you can place it somewhere else if you desire


 * I said added the visible comment, I am unhiding this so all can see. The edit summary said, unhiding.  Please, do not post obvious falsities on this page.  I note that there is a hidden comment in your post that is essentially a personal attack against me.  Jehochman Talk 14:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you truly consider my hidden comment to be a personal attack, please make an explicit request that I remove it on my talk page and I will consider doing so - however, I do not consider reporting the view that some section of the community believes you continue drama unhelpfully, and stated as much in your rejected bid, to be a personal attack. DepartedUser (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am making an explicit request to remove the hidden comment, or post it publicly. Also, do not ever remove my comment from WP:RFAR again. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made it explicitly clear that your removal of the archiving and collapsing did not include any statement at any time that you undid the archiving, mereley the collapsing. I will no longer negotiate while you are in flagrant violation of the rules of ArbCom. Remove your comment at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, read what I am saying now, and see if your comment is accurate. It will not help your cause if you say things that are obviously untrue or half-true. Jehochman Talk 14:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Essay
Hi Jehochman, I've written an essay, WP:SLACK, that could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like it a lot. Vested contributors should be able to maintain higher standards.  Holding them to the same standards as everyone else should not be such a problem. Jehochman Talk 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holiday season


Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.


 * Have a great Christmas, Jehochman. And a Happy New Year to you too, friend! <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  12:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. My best wishes to you both! Jehochman Talk 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)



Suspected_sock_puppets/Kernow
Hi there. I just noticed your comments on this SSP page where you indicated your intention to block me as a sock of User:Jessi1989. As I appear to currently have a brief window in which I can post on your talk page before you do so, I'd like to ask you, please, to look into this in more detail before you take any action. You are, honestly, being duped here by the SSP accuser as most of what he writes in the evidence section about me is false and/or exaggerated, and unsupported by relevant diffs. You state that all my edits to the article in question have been entirely disruptive and that all my remaining edits are trivial. My edits to the article in question comprise 18 of my 351 edits, and I only got involved in this article in the first place because I took part in the AFD, and the closing administrator asked me to try to rewrite the article because I apparently made the most compelling keep argument and at the time the article was somewhat of a mess. The SSP accuser raised an immediate DRV and fought very hard for this article's deletion. My comments in the debate did contribute towards it not being deleted and I believe the SSP accuser has "had it in for me" since then. My account registration predates the article in question by years. All my editing has been in genuine good faith and as far as I can tell I haven't added anything improper to this article, but I am entirely open to the possibility (and likelihood) that I have an imperfect understanding of Wikipedia's policies so if I have, please draw my attention to the relevant diffs and I will endeavour to learn from where I have gone wrong.

Since being asked to rewrite this article by User:Lifebaka, it's been on my watch list, hence I've made a few edits to it over time, usually in response to it hitting the top of my watchlist drawing it to my attention after it's been edited. Recently, there has been some debate over the reliability of one or two of the sources, although from the article talk page I got the impression this was settled now. While I don't have masses of time to spend editing Wikipedia, aside from this article I have edited a fair number of other articles and ranges of articles, including some which I have been putting ongoing effort into for some time now, and intend to continue doing so. I have also taken part in dozens of article for deletion discussions and deletion reviews. To me, these contributions have been far from trivial, and (I hope) certainly not in any way disruptive. If you do choose to look into this further and have any questions/queries/comments about me or my article edits, just let me know. Thanks, Wiw8 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you agree to avoid further editing of Jonty Haywood and related pages, and refrain from further attempts to create links to his website, and avoid any further collusion with User:Kernow or User:Jessi1989? That seems to be the area where you are having difficulties.  Wikipedia has millions of articles.  Surely you can find other things of interest. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually I would wait for your response on this, however, I have unblocked Wiw8 because the CU case determined that the user was unrelated to Kernow, the alleged sockmaster from the earlier SSP and as this was the reason for the block there was only one choice in my opinion. I hope you don't mind. Caulde  11:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually, I don't mind if people refactor my blocks, per the message at the top of this page. However, when the reason is completely faulty I take exception.  Checkuser cannot prove innocence.  When you got that negative result, your next step should have been to discuss the matter with me.  I would have unblocked that user if they agreed to stay away from Jonty Haywood.  If they wanted to continue editing that article, we could have had a further discussion about the evidence.  Jehochman Talk 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your concerns on my talk page. With regards to the striking of some of your comment, I appreciate that. Caulde  15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Question
I am having an awful time dealing with an editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sunray. The issues are on the Sustainability page and the related sandbox sites involved. I would like to keep editing the article. I feel like I am being driven away with an assortment of baiting and annoying interaction with a person that in my view has taken over the editing there. I have tried to improve the article lately and they edit war me... for no good reason. I recently tried replacing a section I did in the first place originally... and Sunray keeps reverting to my previous version. I have cited policy up and down and up and down... and it does not work. Often citing consensus... which as far as I can tell is not an issue... they repeatedly ask me to abide by this or that or leave off editing there... like I have to sign a contract of behavior to be involved. I would like to make changes to the page... as said and would like to continue improving the article... as I feel there are to small a group of trying to control the information there, with to many hurdles... but am afraid that I am being constantly ambushed with one thing or another in regard to this user.

I am not a perfect editor... but I have improved a lot... and feel I am a neutral editor interested in furthering the work here in general. This is an example of this person baiting me I think http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability&diff=prev&oldid=256758490 - I have hit a brick wall with this editor who now stops me from editing the Sustainability page which I have contributed a lot. I am going to post this message on several admins pages and see what happens. Not sure what I am expecting.. but I am finding this person very very annoying, and possibly violating the basic policy of allowing people to edit an article. skip sievert (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help resolve misunderstandings or disagreements if Sunray agrees. Sunray is a member of the Mediation Committee. That indicates to me that they are probably a reasonable person in many circumstances.  You can leave them an invitation to join this conversation here. I recommend you retract remarks to other admins as that could be viewed as improper canvassing.  Jehochman Talk 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok... thanks. I left this on his talk page I am not happy about what I perceive as issues regarding the Sustainability article.
 * This Ed. has said he may be able to help sorting out some of those issues. I'd be happy to help resolve misunderstandings or disagreements if Sunray agrees end quote Jehochman. You can leave them an invitation to join this conversation here Jehochman Talk - skip sievert (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability article concerns
We do have a conflict over the Sustainability article. Here is my perspective on it:

In August, an informal project to upgrade the article was initiated by User:Granitethighs, User:V.B. and me. In early September, User:Skipsievert began to edit the article and enter into discussion on the talk page. Soon after Skip began interacting with other editors on the at Talk:Sustainability, I became concerned about some lengthy, tendentious posts by him. A look at his editing history revealed problems with a number of articles he has edited. This report at ANI concerning a dispute on the Adam Smith article will give some insight into the nature of the problem we are experiencing on the Sustainability pages. My own experience in attempting to interact with Skip has been that he seems to have difficulty working with others collaboratively. He takes strong positions and is unable, or unwilling, to work in a consensus setting.

Several editors ceased editing in the article September. Then, in response to a proposal by User:Travelplanner in early November, we initiated a collaborative editing project to upgrade the article to FA status. There is an open invitation to editors to join in here. Five editors have signed up. Skip expressed concerns about the project but did join up. He then added a qualifier. After some research, I added this comment. Skip subsequently withdrew his agreement to abide by the terms set out for the project. 

Here are some illustrations of the problem:
 * Disputes between other Sustainability article editors and Skip, ,


 * Taking offense where none is intended and removing other editors comments: ,
 * Allegations of personal attacks

The genesis of the current problem seems to be over the use of subpages. All the editors have agreed to work on drafts on subpages. On reaching consensus, the page will be uploaded to the main article. Skip disagrees with this approach and wants us to edit in "real time." . Recently he decided, on his own, to move several sections to the main article. Since it is mostly his objections on each of those pages that are preventing consensus, we have delayed finalizing them for now. When he unilaterally moved the material to the article page, I reverted him and explained why I had done so here. I then requested that he abide by consensus and if he was unable to do so, to consider editing elsewhere. Sunray (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings

 * 1)   and others may choose to work as a group and establish processes for their editing, but they may not take ownership of an article and dictate processes to others outside of Policies and guidelines.
 * 2)  If  wants to edit Sustainability, he may do so, and his edits should not be reverted merely because they violate a voluntary process established by other editors.  If the edits are unhelpful, they can be reverted.
 * 3)  If Skipsievert edits Sustainability while others are preparing better versions offline (or in userspace), there is a chance his work will be replaced by a better version.  Other editors should consider merging Skipsievert's edits with theirs, but they are under no obligation to do so.
 * 4)  Skipsievert should not frustrate consensus of the working group by posting lengthy or tangential comments, circular arguments or any similar tactics that amount to disruption.
 * 5)  Sunray, it is generally best practice not to call another editor a troll or ask if they are trolling.  There are better ways to deal with trolls, and such comments risk offending good faith editors who might unintentionally be causing disruption.

Do these point incorporate the concerns of both sides? Jehochman Talk 14:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC) and 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, these findings seem apt when applied to the article (and perhaps the main article talk page). However, the current issue pertains to editing and uploading information from the sub pages. I think that considerable evidence has been presented that indicates Skipsievert has had difficulty meeting item #4, above. Therefore, I request that he not edit the subpages or upload information from them for now.


 * Two of the editors are away until the first week in January and I cannot presume to speak for them. I would like the others to review the situation and comment on the findings by January 5. In the meantime, perhaps Skipsievert would be able to demonstrate his good faith by not editing the subpages further. Both User:Nick carson and I have indicated (and have agreement from the others) that there is work we will be proceeding with on the subpages in the next while. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that if Skipsievert is not in full agreement with the working group, Skipsievert should not edit the subpages set up by the working group in order to avoid disruption. There is no practical reason for Skipsievert to edit those pages if they are not participating in the working group. You might want to move those subpages to userspace because we generally give users more deference in controlling the content of pages within their own userspace. If subpages are in article space, I do not see a way to prevent somebody else from touching them. Skipsievert, how do you feel about this? Jehochman Talk 17:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this overview. I pretty much agree with the above. I will go back to making edits on the Sustainability article... which until recently no one has reverted, although sometimes further edits to them have been made. I have added lots of information and content to the article in various sections over time, and I will continue to observe edits and discussions as to proposed content on the various talk page sandboxes and contribute there also and try to do it constructively.


 * Excluding me from the sandboxes does not seem to be appropriate because I am there to constructively edit... I am going to be careful to just present factual information and try to be as constructive as possible. It implies guilt to quit being involved in the sandbox pages... and I doubt whether preventing my voice from being heard in discussions...whether in a team or not, would lead to improvements... and I do believe my voice is effecting the positions of some editors there to good effect as many suggestions made by myself have been adopted by other editors.


 * I do not like being forced out of discussions... and Sunray has repeatedly asked me to go or leave. This has not made me happy, and has been frustrating... because it seems to be conflicted with my information brought to the article, that he may disagree with. To me this is not an appropriate way to approach another editor as it seems he is baiting me negatively. I do want to have input... although... I could just edit the article... but that seems that I would miss the important discussion and change by discussion aspect. I found Sunrays constant asking me to leave... to be a kind of uncalled for personal attack the way he phrases it also... like I have to abide by him or leave. He has done this multiple times on multiple pages.


 * The current history section on the article was drawn up by myself... and has been on the article for some time,... and I have been a main contributor to the rewrite of the material on that sandbox page also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability/History - Since the new edit of the material is better and more illustrative of the subject (my opinion)... I will add it to the main article. The new material is a combination of the material originally written by myself... with material from the history sandbox... from a variety of people. No claim is made that it is perfect, but it is sourced and cited well, and has some good pictures also... and does represent for the most part a lot of considerations from a number of people (note Granitethighs liked the Sumer aspects, and they have subsequently been shortened by request). I will also do the current best version of the lead from the lead sandbox page... which I believe is better also than the version currently used. It can be noted that mostly it is myself who is making ref/citation/notes... on the sandbox pages in order to link material to broader material.


 * Therefore, I request that he not edit the subpages or upload information from them for now. quote Sunray. In effect this would be a method to prevent me from editing the article, since I wrote and edited much of the material on the sandbox pages. I think this is a not very nice way to exclude me from editing and should be rejected out of hand as being unfair, because that would make it impossible to use material I have edited and contributed to. I protest this idea very much and think that it shows a pattern of Sunray trying to prevent me from editing. skip sievert (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not going to achieve a consensus here, I am afraid. If problems continue, I am prepared to certify a request for comments on user behavior. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In Skipsievert's response, above, he takes no responsibility for his own behaviour and does not alter his POV. Therefore, you may be right that we will not achieve agreement on the above and an RFC may be the only course. Mind you, that sort of drama is exactly what most of the Sustainability article editors wish to avoid. We simply wish to be able to edit in peace.


 * As to Skipsievert's statement that he has "been a main contributor to the rewrite of the material on that sandbox page." The draft version was written by User:Nick carson and User:Granitethighs, and edited by me I agree that Skipsievert has made some valuable additions (and have said so on that talk page). The current version is nearing completion. I have raised one concern (the addition of Sumer as an example) and have proposed to work further on that. I would be o.k. working with Skip to try to produce a version acceptable to both of us that we could propose to the others. If he is up for that, perhaps we could delay the RFC until we have tried that. One caveat, however, I would request that he show that he has listened to, and responded reasonably to, my concerns, without merely dismissing them out of hand.  Sunray (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am willing to be reasonable in this situation... however... Sunray is being controlling as to who can and who can not edit the article and how they can or can not edit it. That does not advance things toward a better encyclopedia. Also he has canvassed other people which I request he retract these requests to them... as I am not interested in getting the water more muddy... and user Sunray is the one undoing my edits and asking me to leave. I have edited together with these other people... and I do not wish to draw them here... and I think Sunray is looking for numbers and possible support for what ever reason.


 * Canvassing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OhanaUnited#Sustainability_article_concerns - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Granitethighs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travelplanner - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_carson#Sustainability_article_concerns


 * I do think that this shows a lack of good faith here... and I do think that Sunray is making unreasonable claims, as to who made the basis of the history article section.... The content is about 90% mine on the main page currently and about 60% or more on the sandbox version. Most of the citations were either made by me or brought to the article by me. That is a fact. I put all the pictures on... I am not concerned with authorship though... but with material.


 * Also note this message Sunray gave Nick on his user page when Nick contradicted an edit on the main page.. Finally, if you want things to go faster, listen to what GT, TP or I are saying. We are all very knowledgeable in the field of sustainability and capable of working together effectively. You might also start using font colours. It is an effective way of making sure we know who is doing what when we are editing a section. That is where I want to get to. But right now some of us are heading in different directions. - I am not repeating this because I want Nick to enter into the discussion here... just because of the control of the article issues that has made it virtually impossible to improve it without being reverted by Sunray. I request that messages left for these users be taken down, as said. I want to have this discussion with Sunray. He is either friends or worked with these other editors in the main before.


 * I have tried to maintain good faith... I have never focused on people and personality issues with editors... except for here because of the nature of problems occurring... and I am finding Sunray to be punishing in his attitude of desiring to control the article... and manipulative also in that he is presenting a case that would preclude me from editing if I were to agree to it. This seems to illustrate very well the problem of dealing with this person that I have had... bending every thing every which way as possible to control the information. The response to what I said by Sunray is accusatory and unfriendly and also implies that I am irresponsible and saying something like this In Skipsievert's response, above, he takes no responsibility for his own behaviour and does not alter his POV. seems to me to be a very nasty response to someone that is a thoughtful and constructive editor. skip sievert (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The moment I saw Sunray's message on my talk page, I knew skip must be causing trouble again at Sustainability article. Skip has been, on many occasions, pushing his POV and blaming on others that they are unwilling to compromise. However, I disagree. I think the root problem is himself, refusing to accept others' contributions. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch! Jehochman, I hope you do not mind my comment here. I saw this as a commendable attempt to seek informal mediation of a dispute, and you know that I consider this a very important part of sane Wikipedia process, it can work if the mediator is trusted by both sides. Behind the comment above from OhanaUnited was this, which smells like canvassing, unless it was approved by you or by both parties here. (Above, you properly cautioned Skipsievert against possible canvassing, which may have preceded your agreement to mediate. Presumably he stopped.) Gathering additional comment: good, if both sides consent. Selectively gathering it without consent, not good, and certainly not likely to resolve the issue unless the solicited comment happens to be mediative in nature, which the above wasn't at all. I have not examined the sources and cited documents, and have only commented, here, on what appears here and in the canvass for comment. I would, on the basis of this, make a preliminary recommendation that an RfC not be started unless it deals with all involved in the dispute. There is more going on here than one person's misbehavior. I would recommend, if the matter cannot be resolved here, based on your final recommendations, that more formal mediation be followed. I've not used Wikipedia mediation yet, it's never been necessary, as you know from personal experience! However, if a mediation like this gets stuck, it may be that both sides didn't adequately trust you and your judgment, you were picked by one side, perhaps. In that event I'd suggest that the side not satisfied by your conclusions pick their own mediator and that you and the other try to work it out, and if you can't do that easily and find consent from the parties, the two of you pick a third that the two original mediators agree upon. It needn't be complicated.... or formal Wikipedia mediation could be used. User RfC can be destructive, sometimes, as it sets up a kind of presumption that the user must have done something wrong, and since most of us do things wrong from time to time, especially when we come into conflict, it can easily conclude that there is sanctionable user misconduct, and I've seen this, even when the user's misconduct was less serious than that of those who filed the RfC. It was actually stated by an administrator, in closing one such RfC, "This RfC isn't about them, it's about him," even though there was a general agreement from uninvolved editors who commented in the RfC that the conduct of his that was problematic didn't stand out, and, as you know, incivility breeds incivility. The accusers, being administrators themselves, saw no consequences at all. Sure, someone could have taken it to ArbComm. But, ahem, one of the administrators involved was a long-time member of ArbComm..... If you are going to shoot the king, don't miss. It is far safer to resolve disputes at the lowest possible level. Congratulations, Jehochman, on trying to be a part of that. I saw some good work above.--Abd (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Abd.  I do not think this was improper canvassing.  Skipsievert seems to be having a disagreement with a working group that includes Sunray, OhanaUnited, and a few other parties.  All these parties may need to agree on the informal resolution, according to Sunray, if we want any agreement to stick. Jehochman Talk 01:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed what amounted to a personal attack by another editor about old history. It is also a fact that this editor has not played an active role on the discussion and editing on Sustainability. It is true that he signed the sign up sheet though.

I came here to iron things out with Sunray and only him... not his friends... and have found that to be problematic. Thanks user Jehochman for bringing up all the points you have made. I chose you at random as an Admin editor so this process has been interesting... and I can not find any fault with the way you have handled this. I appreciate your comments and your work below... which I am pretty much in accord with. I think we should let this sit as is now. I also agree with user Abd about his comment ''If you are going to shoot the king, don't miss. It is far safer to resolve disputes at the lowest possible level. Congratulations, Jehochman, on trying to be a part of that. I saw some good work above.'' and would like to say that I think this is clever and pertinent and a good way to end this informal mediation. So thanks again Jehochman.

Good luck to all involved, and I request once more that Sunray remove invitations to who ever he gave to come here to comment or get involved. That I did not agree to, and that changes the dynamic here to a point that I do not care to be involved in. Having outside ... truly outside observers like Abd... though was fine as they carried no bias. skip sievert (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)   and others may choose to work as a group and establish processes for their editing, but they may not take ownership of an article and dictate processes to others outside of Policies and guidelines. I agree
 * 2)  If  wants to edit Sustainability, he may do so, and his edits should not be reverted merely because they violate a voluntary process established by other editors.  If the edits are unhelpful, they can be reverted. I agree
 * 3)  If Skipsievert edits Sustainability while others are preparing better versions offline (or in userspace), there is a chance his work will be replaced by a better version.  Other editors should consider merging Skipsievert's edits with theirs, but they are under no obligation to do so.  I agreee
 * 4)  Skipsievert should not frustrate consensus of the working group by posting lengthy or tangential comments, circular arguments or any similar tactics that amount to disruption. I agree
 * 5)  Sunray, it is generally best practice not to call another editor a troll or ask if they are trolling.  There are better ways to deal with trolls, and such comments risk offending good faith editors who might unintentionally be causing disruption.
 * The "invitations" you refer to were requests to the other editors of the article who were involved in the consensus that was the main issue here. Several have been away over the holidays. If we are to continue with the Sustainability FA Project, it is crucial that they are apprised of the situation and involved in the decision. Collaborative editing is inclusive. Sunray (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets bury the hatchet now and edit together in the interests of making the article interesting and creative. skip sievert (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Best offer I've had today! See you on the article pages. Complements of the season to all, and special thanks to Jonathan for his good work here, Sunray (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, here's another proof that he refuses to communicate. He refuses to let other editors to comment, remove other people's comments, and the inappropriate use of "minor edit" feature. Skip, you have no rights in removing other people's comments. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 21:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It the time of year when we should try to give people fresh starts. I'll keep an eye on this situation.  Let me know if things get out of hand.  Otherwise, let's try to avoid stressing other editors in hopes that they may make serious efforts at self-improvement. Jehochman Talk 01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ohana, that was removed because I viewed it as a personal attack and not accurate. I also protest that you are confronting toward me with a negative tone every time we meet... I came here to reconcile issues and be helpful. The Skipsievert|ANI in August 2008 that you describe for personal attack is not true. No personal attack involved, so you provided false witness here to an unrelated event. It was a content dispute about sourcing that was worked out, and never involved the kind of inflammatory rhetoric you describe and ended amicably. Can we end this now? Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll willing to give you another chance (but the last one) on the grounds of AGF, but you need to show a lot more initiative and willingness to discuss than this. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not edited with you as you have not been involved in day to day or week to week editing of the Sustainability article, though I have no problem doing that. I am not on trial here. I consider the above a puzzling threat considering I came here to sort out some business about editing the article... and it appears you are giving me I'll willing to give you another chance (but the last one) This is harassment in my book and uncalled for.


 * It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to attacks. Discuss problematic edits, in reasonable terms, on that article's discussion page. If the behaviour of a user remains problematic, use the dispute resolution process. Could this be the end of this now... I hope. skip sievert (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic
I think I may have worded myself poorly on the talk page. I did not mean to suggest that all editors would be treated the same. This latest incident involved an editor who doesn't seem to be listening to repeated warnings; further, it appears that this editor called in sock/meat puppets to continue reverting and give a false appearance of opposition to the text. I believe that if a similar incident happens in the future, we need to block any sock/meats that show up to revert and ban the instigator from the article for a time. Does that make a bit more sense, or do you have other ideas on how to stop tendentious editors from controlling the article? Any advice or ideas you have would be very welcome. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 22:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are on the right track with your clarification. If you need any help, feel free to summon me to look at any situation. What I like to do is pick the worst troublemaker and sanction them first.  That often convinces the others to back down, and if it does not, you just rinse and repeat until they get the point. Jehochman Talk 22:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

SSP
Hi,

Can non-admins actually close and archive SSP cases, or is that an "admin-only" thing? Thanks,  Majorly  talk  15:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can close and archive cases, especially those that don't require blocks. If you find one that requires blocking, leave a conclusion and ask an admin to review it, place the blocks and archive.  Often I find cases that should have a checkuser for confirmation.  You can help a lot by filing at WP:RFCU and noting the result on the WP:SSP case.  If you take that path, the RFCU clerks will do any blocking that is needed.  What's most important is to have uninvolved, experienced editors review the evidence and say whether it is 1/ bogus, 2/ credible but requires a checkuser, or 3/ sounds like a WP:DUCK. Jehochman Talk 15:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Gazi moff  00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Protest
Hi,

I've protested your closure of my COI-request here. In general, I think that your ongoing advocacy for my banning makes you uniquely unqualified to do such actions as you did.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in any content disputes with you. As an administrator, it is my prerogative to suggest whatever methods I feel are necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia.  As it happens, I've already cited that thread into evidence at the arbitration.  You made a bad mistake when you accused me of bad faith.  I was one of the people who was trying to help you.  Your actions convinced me that you're here to battle, not to edit.  If you want to convince me otherwise, stop making frivolous accusations of bad faith against me and others. Jehochman Talk 02:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I can be so bold as to comment, it should be noted that Jehochman showed a lot of restraint and was pretty helpful actually when SA was VERY frustrated and expressive recently. At this point both of you might well served to lower the intensity of the accusations and barbs. The sayings, "Rome wasn't built in a day" and "None of us are perfect" (myself excluded) come to mind. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Jehochman Talk 04:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Search engines
Oh how right you are here! I once was searching for someone's name and Google found a similar name deep in a website that had no content on the front page. Buried several layers deep was the page Google found. What was on it? It was a meeting place for pot growers and smugglers in BC! They were discussing growing methods and which parts of the US border to smuggle their pot and hash over. Quite interesting. Everyone used first names or tags. No last names at all and nothing else on the other pages, to the best of my knowledge. Another time Google got me "behind" a website's security. Usually one had to log in, but it got me into the site and gave me access to article content I shouldn't have had access to. I was very impressed and have been a Google fan ever since. Never underestimate the power of some search engines. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
If you don't mind, I posed two questions for you right above the RfC section. I ask the questions not necessarily to be argumentative, but to understand your precise view on those specific questions. (And would you answer in that talk page so that others may see your answer as well?) Thanks. Jbarta (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made my opinions and reasoning clear already. Please keep the discussion at the article talk page. Jehochman Talk 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at your opinions in the talk section, you've made relatively few. Your opinions on numerous aspects of the discussion are fairly nonexistant. You do make the argument "conspiracy theories" is how many reliable sources refer to the issue. I can't argue with that. Should I assume that is the extent of your argument and position and is all you feel necessary to put forth in defense of the current title? That other arguments are irrelevant? If so, fair enough. We'll disagree and part friends. I would hope however that you might address the other points made in support of a title change and flesh out your argument a little more. Answering the two questions I posed would be a great start. And you're right, this should be confined to the artivle talk page so I hope you'll answer them there. Jbarta (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am working on a few other things and do not care to add more to that discussion at this time. I recommend WP:RFC because it is a highly contentious subject.  You want to get a strong consensus before taking action.  Jehochman Talk 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
It will be interesting to see what Wikipedia's cast of characters has in store for 2009! Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

ARBCOM workshop
Hey Jehochman,

I am attempting to keep arbcom workshop pages as clear as possible so that it easier for people to navigate. With your permission I would like to remove the extra template placeholders from yours and others proposal sections. Thanx for your time :) Sedd&sigma;n talk 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I'm testing a form of condensed workshop page to help navigation and comparison to the full workshop page. For now im using for the proposed principles section. It can be found here, feedback on this page would be mostly appreciated. Sedd&sigma;n talk 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and condense. Jehochman Talk 05:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry! Missed that Penwhale is a clerk...Yikes. Still "out of town",(read "out to lunch") I guess.(olive (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC))


 * No problem. Happy New Year! Jehochman Talk 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and... Happy New Year to you, too.(olive (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Happy New Year!
Dear Jehochman,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Signature
Yeah, Just noticed. Changed. <font color="Green"> PXK  <font color="DarkBlue">T <font color="DarkBlue">/C  02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

policy clarification
hi, jehochman. i read your message on my talk page and would still like further clarification. how is it defamatory to mention the existence of a very public accusation and controversy? if nixon were still alive, would talking about the watergate scandal on the nixon talk page be against policy? beej (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We can write about anything verifiable by a reliable source, as long as the information is relevant. It is not acceptable to dredge court records to find unsubstantiated allegations against a living person and publish them in Wikipedia.  If these old allegations were relevant, they would have been covered by a reliable, secondary source like the New York Times or the Hartford Courant. Jehochman Talk 05:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed your post. Don't add unsourced scandalous info about a living person to this page or any other. Show me a reference to reliable source-not court docs, not a Scientologvy website, not a blog and I'll tell you my opinion. No such source? No you can't mention it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for breaking news. Jehochman Talk 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

NOFOLLOW
I checked (as Ive checked other matters) - Brion states that NOFOLLOW would not save server load. His exact words were "there would be little or no benefit to it" and "It would provide approximately zero savings in spider visits -- URLs blocked in robots.txt won't be fetched by the robot to begin with". I've added this to the info. FT2 (Talk 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * NOINDEX is a meta tag that is added to pages. Crawlers only find it after they load a page. Robots.txt is something else. Yah, that file is loaded once.  In any case Google doesn't spider our site at all. We send them a feed, I have been told.


 * For best results there needs to be a detailed proposal with full specs. I can't even tell what you're proposing at this point as your proposal is vague. The devil is in the details. Before Brion does anything it would be good to get my comments on specifics. What you want to do can be accomplished without adverse, unintended consequences if a little care is taken. Jehochman Talk 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ZING
"...if you get that tingle of adrenaline as you are about to his the save button, hit the back button instead and don't do whatever you were going to do." This really needs to be codified as scripture all throughout our policy pages and guidelines. Good job. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know about that from hard experience. You should see the stupidness I don't post. Jehochman Talk 06:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

VP
We appear to have reached broad amicable agreement in one thread, and engaging in dispute in another. The dispute thread is probably sterile and unhelpful in the context of the debate. Shall we mutually call a halt on it? FT2 (Talk 16:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Jehochman Talk 16:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Grazie
Thanks for the direction to WP:Oversight. I'd never heard of them. I've followed up with an admin listed there. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. This site is an endless collection or processes and features. Jehochman Talk 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on WP:COI
Hi, I actually might be called a hypocrite for this, but I am drafting an article on a relative. I would like your opinion on whether you think he's notable under WP:ATHLETE, and whether it's a viable stub based on WP:POV and WP:RS. I am contacting another admin as well. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am notoriously horrible at predicting the results of deletion discussions. It would not be too harmful to write an article like that as long as you follow the consensus of other editors.  A disclosure on the talk page of your relationship may be helpful. Jehochman Talk 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin coaching
Hi. I'm interested in beginning admin coaching, and noticed you have a slot open. Would you be willing to start coaching me? I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding what I've done on enwp so far. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about the coaching program. It may be better for you to just go about your business and wait until you get noticed and nominated.  I recommend hanging around at WP:COIN and WP:SSP and helping to resolve cases.  You should also try to work articles through the WP:DYK, WP:GAC and WP:FAC processes.  Participation at WP:AFD is another useful exercise.  You may also watch some of the cases at WP:RFAR to gain an understanding of some of the challenges facing Wikipedia.


 * Feel free to ask me for advice at any time. Best regards, Jehochman Talk 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I will take your advice to heart, and will probably hold you up to your offer and ask when I need advice. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanjay Gupta
There may be WP:BLP issues with this article of a public figure (possible candidate for United States Surgeon General). Could you look into it and see if probation is needed (as it often is with Barack Obama related articles?Builtsoap3 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article seems fine at the moment. I am flattered that your first edit to Wikipedia was my humble talk page. Jehochman Talk 13:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

hoping for some more advice
hi, i was hoping you could give me some more advice. here's an example of the kind of provocation i've been dealing with from user:MickMacNee, (block log), the user who reverted all my edits on the jonty haywood article and then raised the deceptive ssp against me. take a look at the following sequence of events:
 * 1) mickmacnee's last edit to the article before yesterday was on 20th dec 08
 * 2) you blocked me on 22nd dec, and nobody touched the haywood article all the time i was blocked
 * 3) yesterday you unblocked me at 14:41pm
 * 4) and then at 15:59pm yesterday, barely an hour after you unblocked me, mickmacnee suddenly makes this revert of a reliable source that i added to the article weeks ago. his edit summary says "rm claim only verifiable in a foreign language source".

now i'm not silly enough to edit the article and get re-blocked. but an editor of his experience knows that foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable as far as wp:v is concerned, and he knows that i know it too. this, and the timing of his sudden revert straight after you unblock me, suggests strongly that he is deliberately trying to provoke me into contesting his edit so that he can get me blocked again. i don't know what it is this user has against me, but the above suggests that he is more concerned with getting me in trouble than actually improving the article. i also realise now that his reversions of my edits in early december were probably a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction so that he had some "evidence" for his ssp, and it was stupid of me to react the way i did. i'm not asking you to take any action against him, i'm trying to ignore him and get back to editing other topics, but i could use your advice on the best way of dealing with situations like this. thanks again for the unblock. Jessi1989 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that is a reliable source because I don't read Dutch. I strongly urge you to remove Jonty Haywood from your watchlist and ignore it completely.  You'll only convince me that you need to be reblocked if you go back there advocating for the insertion of dubious material. Good advice:  don't take the bait and assume good faith, especially when you think it is not deserved. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * hey, thanks, yeah you're right, i'll ignore mick and that article. take a look at De Pers if you doubt it's reliabilty, it's a very popular paper in holland. anyway, thanks for all your help. hopefully i won't have to bother you again :) Jessi1989 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorsement
Just a note on the current proposal. I've temporarily moved your point to the talk page as it's been raised on both talk and draft proposal, and it's quite conditional - best discussed right now.

We aren't "consensus seeking" at the moment, so the proposal page isn't really a "vote" page and attracting people to think of it as such won't help. A couple of notes who proposed and endorsed it is one thing, that's background (who's backing the proposal as it stands), and the list shouldn't be encouraged to grow. So I have added a note (commented in the proposal) that other users should not just "add to the list"; that's not its aim. FT2 (Talk 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to replace it by a note of the form "partial endorse, see talk page", that's more concise and might be helpful. FT2 (Talk 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved all the signatures to the talk page where the different views are on equal footing. Jehochman Talk 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That'll do for now, I think. FT2 (Talk 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to refactor the views into some sort of organized format, and if people want to list their thoughts and the reasons, let them. I am trying to work towards consensus, not sabotage your proposal. Jehochman Talk 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You've actually made me think on this. I was concerned a bit about advocacy slipping into the list. It ws intended as a brief list to indicate to people skimming it, who was "behind the proposal", which some people would wish to know. The addition of short comments was not really right, but a few words.. meh. What I've done instead (which I wouldn't have without your intervention, and which I think is better) is I've asked permission of those who made any extended comments to move all their detailed comments completely to the talk page, where they can be read or discussed fully. I've also put a commented note for editors that it's not intended to be a "long list of advance support" but an indication of proposers only, and please not to add more.


 * Your name is also in that list, exactly equal, with an emphasized note (italic) that it's partial endorsement only and the identical link to your full comments listed with everyone else's. I put it in the correct place time-wise (ie after Durova, before Coren, I think). I left it commented though as it's not really for me to make a final step of "signing you back in" or assuming this would work for you, but if you edit the page you can easily remove it fully, or else de-comment it for quick inclusion. If that doesn't work, then let me know - I'll watch this page for a bit to save "splitting" this thread. FT2 (Talk 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of spam filter to enforce (N)POV
You might want to look into this issue, it might have some relevance to the fringe science arbitration case. In these two edits User removed vital references from the article on Martin Fleischmann. The first was the removal of the URL-line in an well formed Citation template, the referred file being a PDF copy of a peer-reviewed paper in Physics Letters A, available on-line at a cold fusion related repository lenr-canr.org. The second was the complete removal of the reference to the original press real, on-line at newenergytimes.com. I tried to restore the link and reference, but was prevented by the spam filter. I do not know what is happening here, but I find it very fishy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have concerns about the spam filter, you may contact WP:WPSPAM. JzG is a reliable editor. That is not a guarantee that ever edit is perfect, but I see no reason to bring this up at arbitration. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * JzG has a history of excessive draconianness with regard to the spam filter, which he sometimes uses in order to be the judge, jury, and executioner against sites he dislikes, following it up by labeling as trolls anybody who dares criticize his actions. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are admins and other widely-respected editors who sometimes turn out to be human beings; I know it's disappointing, but we don't have much alternative at this point. If JzG, or anyone, acts improperly, dealing with a specific incident is the way to start. Focus on the edit, not the editor. The spam filter is just a big automated editor, driven by the information fed into it, and if we feed it improper information, we are responsible for that. If a web site is on the filter, improperly, there is process for removing it, should that be justified. All of this is covered by the dispute resolution process, which should begin with direct and fully civil requests. If that is fruitless, and attempts at mediation fail, there is RfC on the specific web site, and there is RfC/U for consistent improper editor behavior (including admin behavior).
 * A web site that is generally on the spam filter because of multiple improper attempts to link to it can be, I think, excepted for a specific reference (such as for a document copy). If not, there may be grounds for removing the site from the spam list but manually monitoring for it. One issue at a time, at first.


 * As to calling editors "trolls," that's a violation of WP:CIVIL unless the basis is strong. Again, dealing with a specific incident is where it would start. --Abd (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC) As always, Jehochman, I assume your permission to comment here... Happy New Year!


 * That seems about right. It is generally best not to call editors trolls because if they are trolls, they will delight in a public display of umbrage.  If they are not trolls, obviously it is hurtful to mislabel them. Dtobias has a history of disagreeing with JzG.  A more effective route would be for the editors concerned about the blacklisting to start a dialog at WP:WPSPAM.  I don't think that particular website has been spammed, but it also may not qualify as a reliable source.  The anti-spam cabal are not keen on letting their list be misused for other purposes.  Jehochman Talk 15:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, every time Dan goes off on one of his little crusades about links, I am reminded of Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life - I get a little song, "every link is sacred" running round my head. The reason lenr-canr was blacklisted was due to relentless promotion by Jed Rothwell, the site owner, and his associates.  Spamming, in other words.  I don't know if anyone noticed Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion?  It deals with this fringe advocacy in some detail.  Guy (Help!) 15:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be very difficult evaluating this LENR sourcebook as a WP:RS, published by Oxford University Press 6 months ago and currently promoted by lenr-canr.org. Mathsci (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:WPSPAM is not political. They won't blacklist things unless they have been spammed.  If the site is on the list it may very well have been spammed. Jehochman Talk 16:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was. The most recent thread about the site owner was the "Jed Rothwell Travelling IP Roadshow" thread, or whatever it was called; the site owner is the main proponent and source of links to this site.  It is quite a routine matter of link spamming by a (in this case POV-pushing and block-evading, thus banned) site owner. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have, now, investigated a bit on this matter of the spam blacklist. JzG seems to have concluded, on his own, that lenr-canr is to be treated as a spam site. In his "proposal" when he, as an administrator, added lenr-canr to the blacklist, he gave a diff to an IP edit signed by the "librarian" at lenr-canr. That edit seemed totally proper to me, even if argumentative. I have not researched this more deeply, but what is involved is copies of papers by various authors (some of them published in peer-reviewed journals that would make them RS) hosted at lenr-canr. JzG removed some citations from Martin Fleischmann to lenr-canr, and added the site to the blacklist, making it impossible to undo his edits. He's used administrative tools to fix an editorial decision of his in stone. Now, perhaps he's got a good reason. But it doesn't look like it, on the face. Jehochman, he didn't discuss this. The judgment of spam was solely JzG's. Your assumption about "them" is not necessarily correct. This was JzG, apparently acting alone. From his response above, I'd say that JzG has become a bit "involved." That was an uncivil response by him above.

Yes, I've looked at the RfAr. It doesn't authorize any removal of links, it doesn't sanction lenr-canr, it wasn't about lenr-canr, and it seems that JzG is referring to his own evidence submitted there. --Abd (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To explain a little more. The citations removed by JzG were to copies of papers hosted by lenr-canr. The papers themselves were published, and whether or not they are RS would depend on how they are being used. This is always a decision to be made in context; there are occasions where an otherwise utterly unreliable source may be used, because it establishes verifiability. A good example would be a self-published paper, by a notable author, used to verify that, in a controversy, some opinion or claim was made by that author. In this case, one of the links removed was about the history of the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, and the paper was one presented to a conference in which Fleischmann goes over the history. Absolutely, an objection may be made, but we resolve disputes over sources by discussion and consensus, not by administrative fiat.

There is also the issue of possible copyright violation. It's not clear to me that it's our business to determine if material hosted elsewhere is copyvio or not. We aren't legally responsible even if it is, and it would be impossible for us to verify if the thousands or millions of external sites are in copyright compliance or not. I would agree that we shouldn't "promote" an egregious violator, but do we have any evidence that lenr-canr is such? I haven't seen evidence of any violation, only assumptions about it.

Anyway, I do indeed intend to request removal of the site from the blacklist, as you suggested, if I have time. I've got kids to deal with at this point. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a huge can of worms, Jehochman. Sorry I even looked at your talk page.... However, now that I know, I can't go back. What I see here is an anti-fringe POV that is not merely an insistence on RS. LENR-CANR.org is a rich library of sources on the topic of cold fusion, it's the kind of thing that, when I read Wikipedia, I want to find. It may be biased; however, it is still useful. It isn't particularly "polemic," though it may certainly contain some polemic articles. I have, in the past, seen highly useful web sites removed as external links from Wikipedia because they contained advertising; and I know that my own knowledge of those subjects would be significantly poorer if I'd only read the article after the removal. I'm not claiming that the site is a reliable source in itself. It is a *resource*, and a significant one, and this can be established, I believe. The decision to use or not use a site shouldn't be made unilaterally by an administrator, preventing ordinary editors from asserting a different position; JzG, here, removed a link from an article and at the same time made it impossible to undo his edit by blacklisting the site, using his admin tools. That's an admin making a content decision with the tools. He has been asserting a series of justifications, one of the latest being a BLP claim, though BLP isn't relevant to the spam blacklist, and his use of his admin tools to apparently support a content position of his, which is the *only* serious issue I've raised. You know how I work, Jehochman, one step at a time. He's not responsive, so I'll need to take some more steps, apparently.

(I have some substantial knowledge about cold fusion; when the Fleischmann-Pons experiment was announced, I immediately went out and bought about $10,000 worth of palladium. (It was sold a few years later, I have no COI!) I've followed the matter occasionally since then. There is serious research on-going, and this could be a case where "scientific consensus" is premature. The point has been made that no mechanism is known that would explain it, but that is actually an antiscientific attitude; sure, it makes something unlikely, but it also closes the door to possible new discovery. There are experimental anomalies involved, and that's the kind of thing that does, indeed, merit further research, it can lead to new science. Cold fusion was a long shot from the beginning and probably remains one, but a lot of research is like that. Obviously, we need take special care to present the known facts and the history in full accordance with our policies, but the controversy itself is an encyclopedic topic, and applying scientific RS standards to what is also a sociological or historical topic may not be appropriate. I've started to look at the Cold fusion RfAr, and it worries me a bit, but I haven't examined the reasoning in detail yet.) --Abd (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be something here relevant to the Fringe science arbitration.... --Abd (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add the evidence. We should not be censoring information we disagree with.  That site might be a good example of the fringe view.  I have never added anything to the spam blacklist so I do not know the proper procedures.  It may be useful for the Committee to clarify this matter. Jehochman Talk 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Low Energy Nuclear Reactions isn't "fringe science," properly. It's a field which was considered closed by many or most, especially those in the hot fusion field, twenty years ago, but research continued, including research by quite reputable scientists and organzations. The original DOE assessment which seemed to seal it was rushed, providing absolute inadequate time for the necessary research to be done to refute or confirm the Pons-Fleischmann findings. What actually happened was that the original report was overenthusiastic in ascribing cause to the observed excess energy effect, it turns out to be (at best!) quite difficult to reproduce the experiment if it is done in a rush, because, with the original technique, it may take a long time to adequately load the palladium with deuterium. Given the problems with the experiment, to conclude that it was fusion taking place was premature, and Fleischmann, allegedly acting as required by his university (patent money!!!) bypassed the normal peer review process for the original press conference, and this very much turned off a lot of scientists, and understandably so.


 * There is now a large body of work confirming the round outlines of Fleischmann's work. Recently, there has been publication, I think in RS, of finding the smoking gun that doesn't depend on the very complex issue of excess heat, which was difficult to reproduce. With new techniques, not only has the effect -- allegedly -- been made easily reproducible, but the signature of nuclear processes, beta radiation, has be quite convincingly detected, with astonishingly simple methods. The field is in flux, and, naturally, we can't just follow the appearances of the latest research, but fringe science, it really isn't and never was. It was minority opinion science, which is very different, and it's easy to prove that with reliable sources. --Abd (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is discussion of lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com on the local spam blacklist talk page -- I think you noticed that -- and on the meta page. My condolences about Durova; your comment about JzG was, I think, intended to be helpful and if she had looked at JzG talk history, she'd have found ample discussion of lenr-canr.org, but not of newenergytimes.com. I just fixed that, adding a new comment to JzG Talk. He fast-archived the original discussion.


 * His blacklisting of the two sites was done without naming them in the edit summaries and without logging them on the blacklist log page. He did propose lenr-canr.org, but only simultaneously with listing, and I'm sure most editors who might have done something looked at it and said, well, it's already been done, so I won't bother investigating. He also mentioned newenergytimes.com as possibly being a problem. He didn't say he was blacklisting it, but he did.


 * He is largely moot, now, as to the content issues, but I'd say that he abused his admin tools to enforce a content position, and he really should acknowledge that so we can all let it go. If he refuses, he then maintains a controversy over the propriety of that usage, and this would be the kind of issue that, if not resolvable short of it, might go to ArbComm. To me, it's pretty much open and shut, but it make take a friendly admin to have a talk with JzG, someone he trusts. Might that be you? If not, is there someone you'd suggest? (Of course, perhaps I might need some advice too! But the kind of advice I've been getting on this has been, from a previously burned editor, Learn to Eat Worms.)--Abd (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Durova will look over the matter and file and RFC if she thinks one is warranted. I've got a few articles to write and am generally avoiding administrative patrols and conflicts except if somebody drops one on my talk page. Jehochman Talk 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, indeed. I'm not trying to RfC JzG, it can be an enormous time-waster and I'd only go there if it becomes truly necessary. However, for a number of administrators to become aware of the situation -- not necessarily to take time to write on it -- is a very good thing. As you know, J., administrative abuse has been a long-time concern of mine. I consider it natural, and I don't condemn administrators who misuse their tools. What is serious, though, and what must be addressed, are situations where the tools are abused and the administrator refuses to recognize it or at least to back down. It must then be escalated, and probably should always be escalated if at least two editors agree that there is a problem, not to mention if two administrators agree. However, escalation should be gradual and cautious, because we should continue to assume good faith and thus that an administrator might listen to reason, particularly from someone the admin respects. It is only intransigence that risks the tools, not error. Physchim62 wasn't desysopped because he issued a bad block, he was blocked because he was unable to recognize the error, his own conflict of interest, and thus the risk was high he'd do it again. The same with Tango. The real tragedy of these situations was that their friends "stood by them," instead of warning them that they were headed for an inevitable result. Choose your friends carefully, you will need them most when you make mistakes, not to support you against "enemies," but to guide you beyond your own blindnesses. We all need this. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted URL causing problems
http://www.---.com/article/508691/talking_to_greys_anatomy_writer_shonda.html?page=2 replace --- with "associatedcontent" without quotes

I was trying to use that URL as a reference to make some edits Grey's Anatomy, but the URL is blacklisted; do you know what I can do about this?

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that is a spam domain. Please find another copy of the paper on a different website. Jehochman Talk 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ug!

 * Moved from User talk:Bishzilla.

You promise not block FT2 again? Promise not use block button on opponents? Breath on opponents much better. Yes? Please tell little arbs. Jehochman Talk 04:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Promising is a very simplistic viewpoint! I need a clear desk and a more appropriate venue before I can promise anything. Say around Easter? It requires full comprehensive details of a matter taking place during the course of a year, from a very wide range of on- and off-site venues. It also has to fit round my work and others' work, my real life, and other historic matters, and to coincide with a family season, a new arbcom season and the start of the working year. Some people, indeed, might lazily dash off a 3 line note by way of reply to your recklessly short and simple question. That's not my way ! Now I will go check various large archives, with review item by item where a search cannot be specified, to ensure accuracy, and to ensure the balancing of that with a few overriding issues, if applicable, such as privacy of users, WMF requirements, ability to cite emails and getting permission if needed, and so on. In this case since I'm being asked about someone else's actions, that were discussed by others, and in others' emails, I'd like to be sure I've done that task carefully, so I need a few weeks to provide an unabridged statement. Can you think of a single reason a dishonest person would take all this trouble? It is an act of only high ethics and integrity. I hope this reassures. Feel free tell little arbs. <font face="comic sans ms">  bishzilla    ROA R R! !     14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Wow! Bishzilla has been taking English lessons!  Who's your instructor? Jehochman Talk 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC
I cannot imagine the existence of a time when dispute resolution regarding Giano would be opportune, and so I am hard-pressed to decide that now is a bad time. It seems like an issue where it will always be a bad time. That does not detract from the importance of it, though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When it comes right down to it, I did as much as anyone to remove Durova's adminship. I stand by that, and while our on-wiki relationship remains cold (at best) we can at least talk to each other without making personal attacks. How about removing your attack on Durova's character and commenting on the actual user; even an expression of disbelief that anyone could have trouble with Giano would be more appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will immediately refactor my remark when Durova provides a disclosure of the history between her and Giano. Her current statement is misleading by omission.  Though that may not be her intention, it is the effect. Jehochman Talk 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have gone ahead and modified my statement in hopes that a good deed will inspire reciprocation. Jehochman Talk 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: GRB
I'm fairly busy for the next two days, but once the weekend rolls around, I'll definitely try to expand those sections. Since most of the sources you've used are online journals, I'm thinking you should look for the information in journals, and I'll take a trip to the library and see what I can dig up. If that doesn't work, I'll just strap on my boots and join the journal search as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Success! I found four books full of information on GRBs:
 * AIP Conference Proceedings No. 141, ed. Liang and Petrosian
 * Gamma-Ray Bursts: Observations, Analyses and Theories, ed. Ho, Epstein, and Fenimore
 * Flash! The hunt for the biggest explosions in the universe, Schilling
 * The Biggest Bangs, Katz

I already started using the first one, and will continue to pump as much info from them as I can, but you might be interested in grabbing them if you can find them so you can accurately edit my work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye. Due to the rough economy I have many clients requesting extra help.  As a result, my time on Wikipedia is somewhat limited for a while, at least until things settle down. I'll be checking in daily to keep stuff moving forward as best I can. Jehochman Talk 03:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clients? You must be a hitman! Nice. Actually, this is good news for me. I was just somewhat carelessly plopping information into the article immediately after reading it, as I thought you were eager to get started with the FAC. Now that I know you're not in a rush, I can feel more comfortable just reading through the books and actually absorbing the information before working on the article, which is probably better for the article anyway. Yay. Cool. I like rice. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I renovate websites. No hits involved.  :-)  Jehochman Talk 05:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP filed for Nangparbat
Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat Most of "their" articles are still semi-protected, so I filed this before they can run free Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Filed in the wrong place. See Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, I was unable to list it under open cases Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat‎ is the main article; Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd) is the redirecter now. Damn this is confusing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

SEO for my blog
Heh. I need some advice.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rand Fishkin has listed blog promotion ideas, 21 Tactics to Increase Blog Traffic. To start, I would think carefully about whether you want to be on Blogspot, or whether you'd prefer WordPress. With your own software and domain name you would have stronger branding.  When I see a blogspot blog, I think amateur and will this blog be abandoned?.    People like  participating in a community (or blog) that looks trustworthy and stable. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotta be able to say 'I warned 'em once'.
If I go to AIV right off, it'd get tagged for no warning. Half Shadow  21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I became an administrator. :-)  Jehochman Talk 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Might want to consider a rangeblock or SP; the little pecker's back... Half  Shadow  21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Kernow
Hello Jehochman. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Deb (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Hi. I don't normally do unblocking and am not familiar with the procedure. I just noticed this one because of the user name, so I took a look and it does seem like it might be a misunderstanding. Rather than just unblock him, I reduced the block to 3 hours, so it can still be reinstated if it's me that's mistaken. Deb (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there seems to be a misunderstanding. Please reinstate my block, pending a more complete discussion. You should reference the sock puppetry case that was linked at the time I placed the block.  The evidenced of meat puppetry and disruption is there. Jehochman Talk 12:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, but I don't see the evidence. The block seems to come after a period of constructive editing on Kernow's part. In fact, his name hardly crops up in the discussion on sock puppetry. Though I agree that his unblock request is a little disingenuous. Deb (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a long history and prior reports of socking. The further disruption at the exact some locus of dispute via apparent meat puppets combined with prior incidents seemed to tip the balance.  User:Ohnoitsjamie concurred with my opinion.  As I have posted at User talk:Kernow, he can be unblocked if he posts a proper request with an undertaking to follow the relevant policies. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman. I've been looking at, which we are using at WP:SPI. At the moment, there is a bit of a problem with it in that the template must be on its own line. If it isn't, this happens:

We've got a working workaround (as it were!) for SPI, but maybe you can have a look at it as a general problem...

Thanks!

[[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added some blank lines to the template. That seems to have cleared up the problem. Jehochman Talk 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Since you commented earlier, could you give some feedback on the current discussion about a topic ban of User:Levine2112? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Question
I hope you might give me your opinion on something. I also left pretty much the same message with Abd... because of crossing paths with him last time here and being impressed with a comment he made. I am not a drama fan... and am not trying to be disruptive or be a problem editor. I have been in a minor revert war with user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtol - He is not friendly... has called me names a couple of times... may have a conflict of interest... because he is a writer on the subject... in the sense that he has precluded information that is connected (in my opinion)... hence narrowing the perspective of the subject in a way to make the understanding of the term less expansive in my opinion. He does not leave explanations of his edits (edit summaries). He does not sign his user name at the discussion page in the normal way. He has accused me of being anon. for some reason even though I leave reasons why I edit and always sign my comments... - Do you think I should try to keep making what I think are constructive changes to the page... or do you think I should back off and just stay away from it?

It seems to me like this person is doing a lot of things against guidelines... and it seems to me like the improvements that I think I am making are being reverted out of some kind of anger that he thinks maybe I am someone he somehow knows... or at least he implies that on the talk page. I do not know the guy from Adam... and edit the article because of interests only... so ... maybe you could give me your opinion or even interact if you care to, after looking at the Energy economics discussion page... and article. The Sustainability page is going fine now by the way. skip sievert (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * COI is narrowly defined to be a person writing about something closely connected, like themselves or their employer. A writer on a topic probably doesn't have a conflict. If the editor is being rude or just non-collegial, you should file a request at WP:WQA with multiple, fresh diffs. Also, don't edit war. It takes two to have a fight. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, written prior to seeing above comment from Jehochman) I'm on it, Jehochman. Both involved editors here seem to have misunderstood a few matters. I'm fairly confident that this can be straightened out without damage to the project or either editor, assuming that both of them are responsive. But to answer Skip's question, above, yes, Skip, you should back off and not make edits to the article that you expect to be controversial, but patiently seek consensus. That doesn't necessarily mean "staying away." My very quick judgment is that you are right in that thermoeconomics is related to energy economics, but Rtol is right in that adding as much material as you have added imbalances the article, and the separate article properly covers it. However, it won't be my opinion that will decide the dispute, it will be a consensus of editors. Rtol errs when he asserts a problem with your lack of credentials in the field, you err when you fail to respect that he's apparently an expert in the very topic of energy economics. I've also seen Skip assert incivility, in this dispute, when I don't read incivility in the comment he was responding to. So, yes, back off. Let's take it one step at a time. That you asked for help is excellent. If the situation had continued, both of you could have been blocked for edit warring. Rtol also asked for help at Editor assistance/Requests. I'll let you know if admin assistance is needed; I doubt it will be necessary. --Abd (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, Rtol is apparently an editor of the journal, Energy Economics.. As such, he is likely a leading expert on the topic of the article. Like any writer, he may need proper editing to meet the publisher's expectations! I'd agree that he doesn't have a formal COI, necessarily, except when it comes to citing the journal, perhaps. Rather, here, he is participating as an expert in the field of the article. Such experts often make serious errors regarding WP policy and guidelines, and we should treat the situation with special care, because the participation of such people is particularly valuable, even necessary. Thus our intervention should be to enhance cooperation and collegiality and civility. Experts, in my opinion, should properly behave almost as if they have a COI; but, really, the restraint that an expert should show is the same as is expected of all editors: don't edit war, seek consensus, assume good faith, and all the rest. Skip did an excellent thing by seeking help, and so did Rtol. Sometimes, in situations like this, an admin pops in and makes a snap judgment, blocks somebody, and turns a resolvable situation into an ugly one. As you may know, Jehochman, I'm an inclusionist, but inclusion does not preclude categorization, and I see proper categorization of knowledge as essential to any encyclopedia, it is far more important than inclusion/exclusion. We don't improve the project by blocking editors, generally, nor by removing reliable content, but, of course, intransigent editors who cannot remain civil and follow behavioral guidelines must, for the protection of the project, sometimes be blocked. I'd rather try to integrate them, though, which means being welcoming rather than severe. Too often, warnings are simply harsh and seen as hostile by the warned editor. Common example: editor A is edit warring with editor B. Editor B has been uncivil to editor A and perhaps editor A has returned the favor. Editor B warns editor A for edit warring. Editor A sees this as a tactic to win an edit war, which it might well be. So editor A, being a normal human being who resists being coerced, reverts editor B again. Editor B, the one more familiar with WP procedures, then files a 3RR report and editor A is more or less automatically blocked. Editor A, particularly if editor A is an expert, is then convinced that Wikipedia is unfair and unreliable. My solution: discount warnings from involved editors, just as we disallow involved administrators from issuing blocks. Warnings should be sympathetically issued by uninvolved editors who, as deeply as possible, assume good faith, and simply attempt to guide a warned editor into functional behavior. If there is bad faith, it will eventually show. --Abd (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Removing_administrator_rights/Proposal
J; I'm going to be trying to breath new life into an old dog, or some similarly mixed metaphor. In particular starting with a proposal like Administrator_recall: Specific in the process, but with room for debate on the details. Thoughts? brenneman 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the current consensus is that desysoppings are not so common that ArbCom is prepared to deal with each of them. I'd like to see ArbCom adopt a standard that loss of trust is sufficient grounds for desysopping, rather than the current higher burden of they call abuse of tools.  It should be obvious that anyone in a position of trust must resign when they have lost trust.  An RFC is the correct tool for determining what the community thinks about a user that has any sort of ops.  If an RFC shows a loss of trust, then ArbCom should be prepared to act, either by motion, or by full case if the matter bears closer scrutiny.  Perhaps this change is so close to what already exists, de facto, that we could just edit the relevant policies to say so and be done with the matter. Jehochman Talk 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

About your comment in JzG's RfAr
. You'd be correct that this would be the relevant policy if there were clear evidence of meat puppetry. I'm quite familiar with the situation, having started to investigate it, as you know, in response to JzG's out-of-process blacklisting, using admin tools while clearly involved in the relevant article.

Rothwell and Pcarbonn are entirely independent, it would be astonishing to me if Rothwell were "being used to circumvent a topic ban." Pcarbonn appears to be entirely observing the ban. I even pointed out that, even though banned, he could suggest edits to another editor, off-wiki or on, and if the other editor were willing to take responsibility for them as if they were his own idea, the editor could make the edit; if the edit was inappropriate, the editor who makes the edit would be responsible, and only inappropriate solicitation (say of a naive editor) would make this meat puppetry. Pcarbonn didn't take me up on the implied offer. He's burned out, I think. Wouldn't you be?

Pcarbonn was an editor very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and, to my review, quite concerned with NPOV and balance. I think he got a raw deal at Arbitration, but that's not really relevant here. (The evidence, examined shallowly, ''looks like he was fighting an improper "battle," but a deeper examination seems to me to show that he was "battling" for NPOV as he saw it, and he was faced with other editors, notably ScienceApologist, but also, from time to time, JzG, who were battling even more strongly, with less regard for guidelines and policy.)

JzG took this to ArbComm. I find it remarkable that he didn't notify me or mention me, when the objection to his block of Rothwell came from me. I hadn't decided to escalate or how to escalate, but I'd have been far, far from taking this to ArbComm. I was not treating it like an emergency. GoRight became aware of the situation and added his opinion. Two users disagree with an admin, on his Talk page, and the admin takes the matter to ArbComm? Isn't this a tad premature? What did I do when you and I disagreed? Drag you before AN? File an RfC? You know what I did, and the project, I'd say, is better for it, we cooperate. Thanks, once again, for listening and responding with an open mind. Maybe we should have some tea more often. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read my remarks with strict logic. I explained criteria. I did not take a position on whether the criteria applied to any specific case. A report to WP:SSP would be the obvious first step, followed by any necessary block being applied by an uninvolved admin. Jehochman Talk 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's correct. I did read your remarks carefully. Your statement of policy was correct, but it was actually irrelevant. What you further say is appropriate is also quite correct. However, the problem here is really JzG, not Rothwell. What I've now documented is that JzG has been acting, not just once, but in a number of cases in this narrow area, where he's involved, using his admin tools to favor his position. I linked it from my RfAr comment, but you can see it directly at User:Abd/JzG. A report to WP:SSP would go nowhere, there is no sock puppetry or meat puppetry; a coincidence of POV is far from establishing it. JzG actually blocked IP that was almost certainly not Rothwell, claiming it was Rothwell, however, Rothwell always signs his edits, the blocked IP doesn't ever do it. Rothwell's IP locates to Atlanta (all that I've looked at), the blocked IP is Texas. So, it appears, if you express in Talk a pro-cold fusion POV, you can now be banned under the Pcarbonn ban. This isn't just bad, it's awful.


 * Rothwell is an easy target, he's uncivil, and he's defiant. But he's been abused, insulted, blocked, blacklisted, all of it improperly so far, with the Wikipedia community tolerating it. I'd be uncivil too, if I were in his shoes! He's one of the world's foremost experts on the overall topic of cold fusion. (Not "scientists," he's a writer and editor; he edits conference proceedings in the field, and his web site is the best bibliography and archive on the topic in existence, apparently. And, contrary to the claims, it's not warped, the bibliography appears to be as complete as he could make it; and he claims that he will host any article where he can get permission. Sure, he's opinionated, he probably wouldn't have become the expert if not for his opinion! He's COI and an SPA and, as such, he properly shouldn't edit the articles, but make suggestions in Talk. And that's what he's been doing. Look, JzG throws up a mountain of arguments, but most of them are actually false or highly misleading. For example, the "linkspamming." Read the guideline on linkspam, what Rothwell does simply doesn't match it. He adds his domain name to his signature, "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org," which is disapproved, but, for starters, it's not a link and the blacklist doesn't prevent it. What the blacklist prevents is actual links, and this is usually confined to dealing with links spammed to articles, and Rothwell doesn't edit articles. The blacklist is not intended as a method of controlling article content by preventing legitimate editors from linking to sites that are allegedly fringe. The guidelines for the blacklist have been and are being blatantly violated. It is truly a can of worms, Jehochman. JzG argued for the topic ban, then decided it, then blocked Rothwell for a month, then blacklisted Rothwell's web site and made edits to articles that could not then be reverted, removing lenr-canr.org and another CF related site, newenergytimes.com. You know, they published Pcarbonn's article. No linkspamming was even asserted for them. The links were stable, had apparently been accepted by consensus. JzG, I think, had tried to remove similar links before and his position hadn't been sustained, so he figured out how to make it stick: make it impossible to revert him. Nice trick, eh? --Abd (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny
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, Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hemshin peoples
Hi Jehochman,

You were briefly involved with the "Hemshin peoples" entry. Upon your advice I had put together a brief summary of the development of the article as well as links to the wholesale reverts (and accompanying explanations)on my talk page here (Section 6).

The main problem with the article is that some users who had no input in the content discussion kept wholesale reverting, taking out entire fully referenced sections with no discussions or arguments. They had denied my invitation for mediation.

One of those users (user VartanM) who used to keep reverting with no discussions whatsoever is back with the same habit. Morever he now states that I am not trying to reach consensus (I wonder how I can do that with a user who has no input in content discussion).

I just wondered if you still keep an eye on the article, and if you could somehow convince this user into mediation or discussion instead of wholesale reverts.Omer182 (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out who's the source of problems there. Jehochman Talk 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI

 * Thank you for your opinion. Please feel free to note my comments at WT:SPI. - jc37 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you still assert that your actions were proper? Are you going to do anything like that again? Jehochman Talk 09:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my response directly above. - jc37 23:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at WP:SPI

 * Again, I'll point you to my previous comments.
 * Incidentally, while you're essentially welcome to format your talk page as you see fit (per WP:TALK), I am as well.
 * Have a good day. - jc37 23:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I asked you before not to copy my signed comments to other places. It is potentially misleading. If you cannot provide a direct answer to a simple question, then the next step in dispute resolution may be necessary. Jehochman Talk 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SunDragon34
Hi, Jehochman. Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I was on vacation for the holidays, and then I got back to school and hit the books pretty hard. I noticed they merged RCFU and SSP. Did anything else change while I was gone?

Besides my holiday Wikibreak, I'm doing fine. I looked into GAN and adopted a user (who has since graduated). Right now I'm just huggling and improving articles, which is probably still my weakest area.

How have you been? Anything I can help you with? <font face="Segoe Print" size="2">~<font color="#FF6600">Sun<font color="#800000">Dragon<font color="#000">34  <font color="#000">(<font color ="#800000">talk )   08:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am doing well, still working on Gamma-ray burst. If you could, see the section immediately above about Hemshin peoples. There has been a breakdown in the consensus making process. How I resolve it depends on which side is working towards NPOV. Could you have a look at the talk page of that article to see what the dispute is about and then check it against an authoritative history book? I feel that one side or the other is pushing an ahistorical view. The other side is refusing to compromise, rightly, because NPOV is a non-compromisable requirement.  Or maybe they are both wrong. Jehochman Talk 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll look into it. <font face="Segoe Print" size="2">~<font color="#FF6600">Sun<font color="#800000">Dragon<font color="#000">34   <font color="#000">(<font color ="#800000">talk )   00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd for Brain quest
This old AfD looks like it's ready for closure. Would you please see if it can be closed? Thanks! <font face="Segoe Print" size="2">~<font color="#FF6600">Sun<font color="#800000">Dragon<font color="#000">34  <font color="#000">(<font color ="#800000">talk )   01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind; someone else took care of it. Thanks anyway.  <font face="Segoe Print" size="2">~<font color="#FF6600">Sun<font color="#800000">Dragon<font color="#000">34   <font color="#000">(<font color ="#800000">talk )   05:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PHG
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India&mdash;all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)