User talk:Jehochman/Archive 21

Offsite communications between you and Cirt
Did you and Cirt discuss this arbitration request prior to your attempt to prematurely close it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Did you and anybody else discuss it? Jehochman Talk 04:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, this is suggestive of off wiki communication. Which while not against the rules is troubling when you are presiding over her WP:AE request. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I occasionally receive emails from users. If you notice our software offers an email feature. Moreover, admins are expected to receive emails about sensitive issues. I hope both of you will stop casting aspersions and assuming bad faith.  For the third time, Cirt did not email me about the AE request filed by DC. Jehochman Talk 17:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please rephrase that in more general terms? Did *any* offsite communication take place? un☯mi 18:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the fifth time (#4 was lost in an edit conflict), No. Now, please answer this--who have you been talking with about Cirt? Jehochman Talk 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have talked with absolutely no one about Cirt, or indeed anything that pertains to this off wiki. un</b><b style="color:#714">☯</b><b style="color:#614">m</b><b style="color:#514">i</b></i> 19:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, I am not fond of casting aspersions. But when something smells funny i grow concerned. As I could not find a discussion between you and Cirt discussing Scott mac that statement sounded funny. I apologize for any offense taken. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply anything by my question. Since DocJames keeps linking to an offsite discussion where someone has suggested collusion between you and Cirt, it seemed best to simply ask you directly and put a stop to any such speculation. Rest assured that my opinion of your integrity was not swayed by those suggestions. Since you ask, I have had emails from 3 or 4 editors about this sanction request (the lurkers support me in email, as they say). Thank you for clearing this up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who has suggested collusion? An anonymous poster, or somebody with an account here? Jehochman Talk 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lar and Wikipedia Review
User_talk:Cirt. I would like to know your thoughts regarding this. failed to self disclose his prior involvement at Wikipedia Review in an attack thread against me, before attempting to act as an "uninvolved admin". Can you comment? I will defer to your judgment as a third party. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you quote Lar's comments about you in that thread? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#942">u</b><b style="color:#841">n</b><b style="color:#741">☯</b><b style="color:#641">m</b><b style="color:#541">i</b></i> 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually on further review, Cirt cannot quote any comments from me about Cirt in that thread. Why? Because there aren't any. The comment just below is a dodge, nothing more. Review the thread for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Cirt is trying to obfuscate matters. ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No I will not dignify that thread with furthering its text. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all right, I will... : "Of course harassing people on Commons via allegations of copyvio isn't something you'd know anything about, is it?" which was a comment directed at Pieter Kuiper. Cirt needs to be less fastidious... if Cirt wants to allege involvement, merely saying  WR! WR! won't cut it.  Something substantive needs to be advanced. ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you wish to suggest that Lar's remarks there are evidence of prejudice, then you'll need to be more specific and open to discuss that assertion. Otherwise it is just OMG BADSITES!!!! or an attempt at "guilt by association".--Scott Mac 01:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I saw a site discussing ways to harass people, I would refrain from posting there myself. If I had posted there, I would self-disclose that on-Wikipedia in a prominent disclosure on my userpage, and also every time I wanted to act as an "uninvolved admin" thereafter. Lar has done neither. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were editing BLPs with a heavy anti-Scientology agenda, I would disclose that on each BLP. Indeed I would refrain from editing those BLPs myself. YMMV.--Scott Mac 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the substantive allegation. But in passing, let me suggest that you make the same suggestion to each and every arbitrator who has ever posted there. (hint, it's currently a majority of the committee, or pretty close) I suspect you won't get very far with that suggestion, but it would be an interesting exercise for you. WR is more than just a "site discussing ways to harass people". For the record, though, I often do speak out against such activity when I see it. I saw nothing like that in the thread you reference, just concern about your activities (and those of DC, as well). ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Just looking at that thread, Lar made three comments in it - Not one of them is in relation to Cirt at all, all three are in relation to another user at commons, nothing to do with User Cirt at all Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He did comment in the thread. The purpose of the thread is to attack me. He did not refrain from posting there. He did not disclose that he posted there. -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the thread was to criticise you. Not every criticism is an attack. ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A major portion of the thread is about guessing about what I do in real life, and then ridiculing those guesses and suppositions. -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The thread doesn't seem to be just to attack you but also to discuss you. Lar was not involved in discussing you in anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ZOMG, Seriously Cirt. ANI is that way --> Here . <-- Scott Mac, Lar, Rob cut it ANI is that way . This is really getting outta of hand. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will await and defer to judgment of Jehochman. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

JEHochman's judgment is irrelevant (although I'm interested in it nonetheless...)

Per ARBSCI:
 * 2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

I have not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in this area and I am not mentioned by name in the case. Therefore I'm uninvolved. QED. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The same applies to me. I haven't been involved in any content disputes related to Scientology.  Except perhaps for a handful of stray edits such as WP:BLP enforcement on Keith Henson, I don't recall editing Scientology topics. Lar, when you accuse me of being involved, you need to show diffs.  Likewise, Cirt needs to "put up or shut up".  Cirt, don't make an accusation unless you have the proof and are able to carry it all the way to the endzone. How about everybody removes their teeth from each other's arses? Jehochman Talk 03:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have struck my suggestion that you are involved from the AE page. If there are other places that you think I made it, please advise and I will strike there as well. ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassadorship: Want has?
Hey mate! As you may already know, Wiki(m/p)edia is doing an outreach program in which students at universities are working on articles about public policy (though the scope of the topics may expand, if I'm not mistaken). To help the students get their sh!t together, Wiki(m/p)edia has gathered together a team of fine editors (herein referred to as ambassadors) to act as mentors and content reviewers. Next semester's program is going to have a lot more students doing a lot more stuff, so we need a lot more ambassadors to help them not fail. I realize you're probably a busy beaver already, but if this sounds like a groovy time, check out Online Ambassadors. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Flouride ban/block evader
Another fluoridist here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The 'sista' screams
Thank you for your assistance with that group of sockpuppets. I had a bad feeling about "Screaminsista" from "her" first arrival on the Arthur C. Clarke page, but wasn't familiar with the David York case -- is it even possible to keep track of every banned user on this colossal project? Oh, and don't you love it when a sockpuppet lectures you on proper behavior and etiquette? There are times on Wikipedia when all you can do is laugh. (Or reach for a banhammer.) BTW "she" revealed her ISP and location with this inadvertent logged-out edit. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Jehochman Talk 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN "baiting"
I was sincere in my desire to discuss this as a purely hypothetical scenario. As soon as that idea was (deliberately) derailed I disengaged and closed the discussion, but somebody else opened it back up. The whole point of trying to discuss it in the abstract was that I had already decided to permanently disengage from WMC but wanted to discuss this issue in case it should come up again in the future. What happened there is a perfect example of what has gone wrong here, and why I have lost all interest in coming anywhere near this group of users again. The constant assumption that I am acting in bad faith is tiring. I can't do anything right in these users eyes, and every time I have tried to show my good faith and bridge the gap (yes I really have tried) I've been ridiculed and derided by them for my efforts. I agree it's an ugly battlefield type situation, and I can assure you and anyone else that it is my sincere intention to disengage from it permanently as I am now convinced that reconciling with this crew is a lost cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, just pretend WMC doesn't exist. He's not allowed to edit any climate change articles.  He's being given a chance to reform.  Please leave him in peace. Jehochman Talk 18:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I just said, that is my intention. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your change of title vs. policy
User:Jehochman just changed the name of Allegations of Jewish control of the media, ignoring wikipedia policies and all the discussion we've had on the talk page. I don't know if you can just do the right thing and change it back or will need an admin to do it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhm, there's is no policy that prevents improving an article. That title is objectively bad.  The one I implemented is better.  What on earth could an admin do about this?  Jehochman Talk 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Change it back til there is a consensus. Are you an admin, by the way? CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am an admin, and no, I will not flipper-flop the article when there is a stronger consensus for my version than yours. A discussion is ongoing.  Leave the status quo until the discussion ends, at which point the matter will be conclusively resolved.  Jehochman Talk 05:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a personal note, and I can't recall our interactions well enough to know how you'll take it. *shrug* But your continuing contributions to this page-move discussion are starting to sound (read?) a bit shrill. You know, it being about the TruthTM and all. I suppose more contextually appropiate would be that it's about the CanardTM and all, but you get what I mean? I do, however, appreciate your phrase "flipper-flop" more than the standard version, and will be using it henceforth in all John Kerry related debates. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I need to step away and not get into a shouting match with an editor who tries to wikilawyer. It is never a good idea to argue with somebody like that. Jehochman Talk 05:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, look! Something to make a concrete anchor useful!

 * Thank you very much! Jehochman Talk 07:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! It's not often I come to respect an opponent. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and it looks like you and I might reach synthesis here, soon! Friggin' sweet! Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since we are already at ANI, I will not respond to any retaliatory filings by you. May I also remind you that you are not welcome to post here. Jehochman Talk 19:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I know I dropped out of the discussion, but...
...I think you had a good idea with an article called Antisemitic canards. How about using the existing page Antisemitism instead? I stand by my assertion that there needs to be a WikiProject:Antisemitism, because there are so many topics to cover. Antisemitism could become a portal, then link off into more articles than the current antisemitism infobox. Just a thought, like I said, I'm out of it. I'm amazed at how well I've come to respect your position and dogging on this issue. You definitely earned the barnstar, regardless of the outcome of all this. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

United States and state terrorism


Salutations- You once nominated "United States and state terrorism " for deletion, I am currently being blocked in any effort to purge the POV from this article and any help or advice to that end would be greatly appreciated V7-sport (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC).


 * That is the worst article on Wikipedia. I recommend you start an series of RFCs, section by section, and spin out as much content as possible into other articles.  While doing that, prune the cruft and anti-American POV pushing.  Work systematically a bit at a time.  I've been watching, and you seem to have been a bit too precipitous to make any forward progress.  Try to take one step at a time. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * and you seem to have been a bit too precipitous to make any forward progress. Indeed, you are correct. I'm not familiar yet with the ins and outs of RFCs but I'll look into it. Going one step at at a time I had wanted to include the US law on terrorism and how it is inconsistent with the definitions of terrorism being used by fringe actors. V7-sport (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can give me some insight into this: Any idea how the title of this article went from "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" to "United States and state terrorism"? Thanks V7-sport (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Re. "Easy does it", that's sound advice and appreciated. Happy belated New Years by the way. V7-sport (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another user:loosmark sockpuppet?
Look at the history here:. An anon and a "new" editor, User:Hallersarmy. I've made my 3rd and last revert on this article for awhile - first I removed unsourced claims or original research, and then I restored blanked info by these two. Having wasted too much time on loosmark's other socks (user:23Michal and User:J.kunikowski) here: and here:  etc. (I can find many more links)I hope this will be looked into quickly.Faustian (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And here he is again, blanking referenced info: . Faustian (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to investigate this properly, and if it involves Eastern European disputes, that's really not my cup of tea anyways. Regards, Jehochman Talk 18:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Solar storm of 1859
I know absolutely nothing about the topic, but you now have lots of references to use. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WOW! That looks like enough material to perhaps write a featured article. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Hi Jehochman, there's a Request for clarification regarding the Editing restrictions page. Could you have a look? PhilKnight (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WPCITE
Hey there. I was once a happy user of your WPCITE Firefox add-on but since Firefox updated (well over a year ago now, yes) I've not been able to use it. Any chance of nabbing the source code? Or, alternatively, for an updated version to be made? 狐 FOX  10:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to develop the software myself. We need to recruit a developer to take over the project.  Source code should be available by following the links back to the project.  It's been a while since I've looked at it.  Jehochman Talk 14:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This link may help: http://sourceforge.net/projects/wpcite/develop. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's also:
 * https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/62583/
 * Cite4Wiki
 * there's a beta-test version available, too, if you ask nicely ;)
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. I see somebody has picked up the development.  Glad to see it is still available. Jehochman Talk 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, lovely! Thank you kindly :) 狐 FOX   11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#aa9944; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Reader
If you want to be helpful, why don't you remove the original research instead of removing the tag that notifies people that there may be original research? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment. Please spell out your concerns on the talk page and see the note I just left there. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 06:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Sigh Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw that regrettable incident. Some people operate in battle mode all the time.  It's a habit.  For drama mitigation I will stay out of it, at least initially. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How true it is that no good deed goes unpunished. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's one of my favorite sayings. No uninvolved editor can seriously question Carolmooredc.  She will immediately counterattack and try to drive them off.  This is what I've experienced when trying to deal with her.  Her approach is extremely anti-collaborative, You're either with us or against us. Jehochman Talk 21:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead then. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Never trust anyone over 30. (I'm 42.) Jehochman Talk 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Carol
Just wanted to clarify; when I mentioned people hounding her unfairly I was more referring to other editors who jumped into the shitstorm. I wouldn't accuse you personally of harrassing her - rather I am trying to say that I think you took the wrong approach in reporting her (and in bringing up aspects of her POV based on dubious evidence). Carol has strong POV outside of the norm, and can be disruptive, I strongly think if it had been done properly (i.e. an RFC/U or a WP:AN/I posting focusing on the right aspects - the disruption) then there would have been a simple topic ban and less mess. :) --Errant (chat!) 23:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about that. I don't have the energy to start an RFC right now.  Doing that properly takes a lot of work.  I hope she gets unblocked soon as 3 months is unnecessary for a first block, and at most a topic ban would be sufficient.  I believe she's capable of high quality editing. Jehochman Talk 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fairness demanding an RFC/U (actually, chastising you for professing to not having the time) was a little harsh of me :) Carol edits well when balanced by someone with a more neutral bent (just to check her a little). As I told her the other day - she not only edits with a off-norm POV but also in contentious areas, a recipe for occasional disaster. It's probably not worth all the fuss though, I'll probably back off commenting :) --Errant (chat!) 23:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say thanks for being so conciliatory regarding the Carolmooredc situation. I accept that you weren't trying to harass her, but maybe just picked the wrong venue for airing your grievances. I hope that Carol will choose to take a break from the Israel/Palestine articles, as she seems to be a productive and cooperative editor on other topics. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear that. No matter what happens, we should try to put an end to disputes and move on. Jehochman Talk 05:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A article that could use some work
The Pyotr Rachkovsky article could use a once over and copyedit. By someone better than me. LoveMonkey (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all you do
Most recently: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium, but there's plenty more. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Jehochman Talk 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Snow
I've been busy shoveling the driveway, walkway, roof, deck, windows (yup, snow drifts burried my office window) and even the inside of the garage where all the slush accumulates. For change of pace I then hammer at ice dams on the eaves, knock down cornices, and chop black ice. If you are not familiar with those winter "features", consider yourself lucky. Jehochman Talk 16:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Meowy
Hi. Since you were the admin who imposed a one year ban on User:Meowy, could you please have a look at the evidence that I presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy? Thanks. Grand master  17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick Ross BLP issues
Hi Jehochman, hope you are doing well. :) Similar to the problem at the page Keith Henson, an WP:SPA account is attempting to link to primary-sourced documents hosted by an attack website . The standard at Keith Henson and other WP:BLPs has been that such behavior is unacceptable, whether it be main article space, or talk page space. Can something be done about this? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do you think that website can be added here? Do to the WP:BLP issues involved, it really should not be linked on Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk)
 * Please file a blacklist request after reading the criteria and confirming that this would be a proper use of the blacklist. The regulars on that page will decide what to do. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See the links to a different attack website added by the same WP:SPA account, at Talk:Potter's_House_Christian_Fellowship, namely, diff link. Can these links please be removed, per WP:BLP? -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * - I removed them (diff) after noticing this post and Jehochman's previous deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Help needed
Back in December, you were one of the people who supported User:QuackGuru when a site ban for disruption and POV pushing was proposed. There are once again serious disputes involving this editor. Please consider helping to resolve the current dispute at Talk:Chiropractic. I am hoping that since you are one of the few editors on record as supporting his involvement, that he will be inclined to listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not terribly optimistic about that! Jehochman Talk 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Long time no talk eh?
I thought I'd drop ya a line. It's been a while since I edited seriously. I think I'm starting back up though. No more long deployments for quite a long time. Who knows, maybe I'll try for that elusive admin spot again lol. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Undead. Nice to see you around again.  (The undead are never gone permanently.)  I haven't been too active lately due to other things pressing on my time.  Kind regards, Jehochman Talk 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu
I have no interest in posting at arbcom, but a nutshell summary of the incident might read something like "A dispute over the spelling of "Raleigh" ended up with Rodhullandemu posting a complaint at ANI about Malleus Fatuorum. Because Rod had said in the past that he would leave MF alone, this ANI report was termed disruptive, and Rodhullandemu was blocked for 2 weeks (later reduced to 48 hours). Rod reacted... poorly. His conduct was seen as unbecoming of an administrator, and he was stripped of the tools by the arbcom." It's hard to cut it finer than that, though there are obviously other issues in play. Lots of emotion, lots of anger, from Rod and others, and shenanigans aplenty. Note that, near as I can tell, this dispute (the Raleigh thing) did not involve blocks - but blocks are cited in the announcement of the removal of the bit. Like I said, I'm not posting at the case page if I can possibly avoid it, but I thought I might be able to summarize - and I wrote the thing, so I might as well put it somewhere. Enjoy, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Who blocked Rodhullandemu?  It sounds a lot like, "You seem to be upset.  Here, I will block you as that will surely help you calm down."  It looks like poor adminship followed by ArbCom failing to remember lessons of past cases.   Jehochman Talk 22:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It felt very much like a cooldown block - Rod was claiming he wanted and intended to leave MF alone, but had filed the ANI report and did not appear likely to drop the matter. His unblock requests show how well he reacted to the block - nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid, but understandable for all that. As for the actual block - rd232 blocked for harassment at 07:46, 23 February 2011 - 2 weeks. Elen of the Roads lowered it to 48 hours following discussion at ANI at 14:22 that same day. Rod then received a notice that Arbcom sent him an e-mail 24 hours later (here). Rod was still blocked at that point. The block expired normally, by all appearances.


 * The User rights log at Meta, interestingly, does not show who initially requested the removal of the sysop bit from Rodhullandemu - the revision has been deleted. See here. One intervening comment from Kylu also appears to have been deleted - here. Roger Davies then posted the official request here, at 02:48 on 26 February. The bit about the user rights is curious, though I'm not as familiar with Meta as I probably should be. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 00:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Mercy from Meta pulled the trigger at 07:35 on 26 February - here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue with meta is simply a matter of someone editing while logged out (and it's not really as oversighted as it should be...). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks-
Thanks for continually trying to do the right thing re. United States and state terrorism. V7-sport (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

United States and state terrorism
You were correct, it is not possible to fix this article. I just tried to remove aspects of state sponsored terrorism only to be reverted, apparently that is what the article is about, not state terrorism. It`s a complete mess. And I have to love the way the articles editors ignore policy like Burden, Synth and V. I think I shall have to give up on it. Tentontunic (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't give up. Instead, work on adding content and references that state the US does not engage in terrorism.  Surely there have been attrocities and mistakes, but the United States as a whole aims to follow the rule of law, disputed though it may be what the law says. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your block of Duke53
Notwithstanding my comment here, I want you to know I appreciate your willingness to look into the matter objectively and take action where you felt it was needed. alanyst /talk/ 16:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of Duke
Thank you for the block. I am still concerned about an accusation that was made by Duke that I was using "numerous alter egos". I am still a little new to WP but I assume by that he means I have created other user names and been editing under them. To be fair, I know there were times early on when I did not log in before making comments in the discussion pages (I had no idea what the 4 tilde thing was about either) but I do not believe that is tantamount to his accusation of numerous alter egos. I assure you the intent at that time was not to mislead or deceive.

I would ask that prior to his return to editing status, he retract and recuse himself of these unproven accusations. I do not expect an apology, I would not expect to receive dignity from a person who views my religion or me as immoral which is his right. And that is fine by me. I'd fight for his right to do so. But I stand by my request that these accusations be retracted as a condition of his block being removed.

I feel this is fair, and would ask your understanding and consideration,

Sincerely,

Canadiandy

199.60.41.44 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy


 * I suggest we don't force any retractions; we want nothing more than agreement to edit productively an to avoid troubled areas. You'd best steer clear, an always use one accoun consistently. Jehochman Talk 03:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the only account I've ever had.

173.180.123.61 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I post this completely unsolicited by Duke53. Though Duke53 has already been blocked the following needs to be stated for the record. Duke53 is merely being attacked by a group of Wikipedia Mormon apologist, who have targeted him and others linked here. The only statement in this link to provide any examples is BFizz. Without examples, those above are merely saying soap boxing about Duke53. Not being their friend is not a reason to block him. Furthermore, the examples provided by BFizz are rather weak. They are merely examples of it takes two to tango. Further still yet, Analyst has engaged in the same behavior in the examples provided by BFizz. Take for example ridicule of a user name linked here  As for a mistreating a new user, Alanyst and Stormrider team up against User:Thewayandthelight  and successfully ran this insightful editor off. Alanyst and Stormrider have a record of using wikipedia manipulation techniques to supress and censor facts from wikipedia, instead of incorporating them. Editors such as Duke53 have repeated frustrated them in this. Now they are merely manipulating wikipedia to censor the editor himself. All statements against Duke53 were from Mormon apologist wikipedians. Without a state from a even a centrist editor such as John Foxe, the block of Duke53 comes off as manipulation.Mormography (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens.rf
Hi. has been "tagging more than five images per seven day period per uploading user" (namely me), in violation of these two warnings by you, and has also neglected to notify me of some of those taggings. Please see Files for deletion/2011 March 24 and Files for deletion/2011 March 25 for details. —  Jeff G. ツ  03:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocking is a last resort. Would you please show me where you have attempted to politely discuss your concerns with Damiens.rf, and his reply?  I'd also like to see diffs of the large number of nominations.  This needs to be listed so that I and others can see it. Thank you and kind regards, Jehochman Talk 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Diff of me asking "why did you nominate so many files I have been involved with in one day?" is here (although admittedly I tacked it on to a warning I had just given), and five days later it has yet to receive a response as of 23:20 UTC. Diffs of the noms I was mentioned on are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Sorry for the delay.  —  Jeff G.  ツ  02:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor182
I note that this editor has been on a talk page blanking ban. Yet he is engaging in the same behaviour. He is also marking all his edits "minor" and neglects to leave edit summaries, as has been pointed out to him before. Time for a block? Please let me know what you think. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are the edits helpful in nature, or destructive? Would you please leave some diffs of the edits you object to. Jehochman Talk 15:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Machine gun tagging
Hi Jehochman. There is a discussion about more mass deletions of images which has also made reference to your earlier ANI involvement on the same issue. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry from User:Theserialcomma
I thought you might want to know I just filed another SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Theserialcomma for his latest IP, 69.108.137.221. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this RfAr/Clarification
. You are mentioned in the part in collapse. Not to worry, J. Nothing bad about you.

Because of the situation that had become obvious to me, that the clique I'd confronted in the two RfAr involving me, was still able to stifle content in defiance of policy and prior ArbComm decisions, I had already abandoned almost all Wikipedia editing, focusing my efforts at Wikiversity, where educational resources can actually be built without having to fight over every word, but when I saw the same people come close to blocking a Nobel laureate (that's mentioned in the filing), and I realized that I'd not exhausted due process, I decided to ask for a lifting of the ban.

It doesn't really make much difference, because, short of what would be a very messy RfAr, with low likelihood of success, the turgidity, the impossible inefficiency of Wikipedia process, would continue.

I was *neutral* on cold fusion. Yes, I've become convinced that there is a real effect, but what I "pushed" for was for the article to reflect what is in peer-reviewed mainstream secondary source reviews, supposedly the gold standard. Instead, the article reflects weak sources from ten and twenty years ago, off-hand comments, etc., as if this were 'scientific consensus.' There is no "Journal of Scientific Consensus," and Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the balance of what is in reliable source. It doesn't. It reflects the opinion of involved editors, not informed on the topic, and when a real physicist, familiar with the literature, shows up, they are horrified. He must be crazy.

As are the peer-reviewers at all those mainstream journals. That some journals still, apparently, refuse to publish articles on the topic means?

Ah, sorry, J. Anyway, the best of luck to you, I don't think it's likely we'll be working together on Wikipedia any more. How about you pop on over to Wikiversity and create an educational resource on SEO? Or whatever you like. As much detail as you like, without conflict. I tried to put a cross-wiki link into the WP Cold fusion article pointing to the Wikiversity resource, that would supposedly have been non-controversial, and it was removed by our retired friend, and my comment on that, on Talk, was part of the evidence leading to my ban. A brief, civil, discussion. Apparently disagreeing, once, with an action that is blatantly POV-pushing is "tendentious argument." Ah, well. There goes the wiki. --Abd (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dropping me a note, Abd! I am semi-inactive due to real-life overload. May is the busiest month of the year.  Jehochman Talk 00:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

United States and state terrorism...
Hello Jehochman, Hope all is well with you. There is an IP (actually 2 ip addresses, Here and Here both are from San Francisco and he says that they are unrelated) edit warring, reverting your edits on United States and state terrorism. Despite warning he's past 3rr and he just reeks of sock puppet. It would be great if you could have a look. Thanks. V7-sport (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Most likely it is User:Giovanni33, who has been working on this article for years. Please file a WP:SPI report with full details. I can't do anything about it as I'm an involved editor. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he's now has an account. I chipped away at most of what he reverted as it was not an accusation of state terrorism. There were some references to state terrorism whichI I let stand, you should have a look. I'de like to move on to Cuba, Nicaragua etc, and your input would be much appreciated. (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Jehochman, If you can spare a second it would be great if you would have a look at this and let me know if I've missed anything. You wrote that you thought article needed to head to arbitration. Is that something you could make time for at a later date? I don't think there's any doubt that you would be a stronger advocate. ThanksV7-sport (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good News. Hope you can make time to work on the article. V7-sport (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

AN thread you "closed"
I discussion top-tagged that thread per your closing remarks and BMK's concurrence, but I moved Doncram's sections regarding me and Orlady outside the tags, as they didn't seem to be directly addressed by the close. If you meant them to be included, feel free to move them back inside the tags. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Research on 'Personal Attributes'
I am an academic research assistant, working on a privacy-related project. We are particularly interested in how online communities make decisions related to ‘personal attributes’ of individuals. Given its more or less institutionalized form, Wikipedia offers a great environment to investigate this. What I am currently examining, to put it more concretely, is how consensus is reached (or not) on why personal attributes are (not) included in an article. The Michael J. Devlin discussion page offers a great example, as it contains an extensive debate on whether or not to include the names of the victims. Obviously, I have already gone through the relevant policies. And I have also checked many articles in the AfD listings. What I noticed, however, is that most discussions (at least in those centralized lists) concern notability. Our research, however, has a broader perspective. As you seem to be an active admin, I would therefore like to ask if you can help us in our research project. It would be particularly useful if you could give me some important/big, famous and/or controversial cases (including extensive discussions/debates/argumentation on personal attributes).

Thank you so much,

Please do not hesitate to contact me in case you have any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jausloos (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/dispute resolution
Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

 * Hi Jehochman,
 * Let me introduce myself. I am one of the long-time editor who has been working with the "Sathya Sai Baba" article since 2009. I spent the last 3 years cleaning this article addressed every BLP violation, taking it to every possible Wikipedia BLP forum. In the past I had written to you when ever I hit a BLP Violation issue related to this article. It gives me great satisfaction that in the last 3 years I did succeed in changing this article from a BLP nightmare (how it was in 2009) to an encyclopedic article -using highly reliable scholarly sources.
 * After all this effort in the last 3 years I am being accused of Sock Puppetry. The reasons given are ridiculous claims - citing my UserName as the problem (after 3 years), spelling and typo errors as the reason for the sock puppet claim case. I am suspicious of why there is such a case on a long- time editor like me who cleaned up this problematic article. I suspect that the Group which has WP:COI with the Subject - "Sathya Sai Baba" is behind all this. They have influence all over wikipedia and have been trying to push their agenda by all means. They have been trying to get rid of me as I removed most of their libel content added by them from negative attack sites.
 * I want fairness and justice in this case. Please see the case here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikisunn.
 * I greatly appreciate your help.
 * Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a neutral message, is it; and Radiantenergy's suspicions are entirely misplaced. At the time when the article was a BLP nightmare, because of the actions of anti-Sai Baba editors, I supported Radiantenergy's push for a deep revert. Wikisunn/Radiantenergy is the mirror image of the anti-Sai Baba editors; he suffers as much from COI and bias as his opponents. Sathya Sai Baba has been a mess for years, and neutral editors are not able to make any headway. I filed the SPI because of the vintage WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour displayed by Radiantenergy here and because Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba is full of walls of text from him. The article will never be sorted out this way. -- JN 466  21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am experienced enough not to be fooled by any sort of message. This is a bit of boomerang. Jehochman Talk 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, including for your apt words here. -- JN 466  00:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikisunn#Diffs_or_links_of_recent_problematic_editing_related_to_Sathya_Sai_Baba - my evidence against these claims. I hope I am not coming in too late. I am very busy person in real life I cannot be looking at this case every hour or so. I am ready to provide what ever helps to further investigate this case. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

-- JN 466  12:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not able to submit my comments as wikipedia is having network failure issues. I have been trying to add comments refuting these claims for almost an hour but couldn't do it due to network issues and edit conflicts. Please don't close this case I will be back in Wikipedia after a couple of hours. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The case is closed. If you want to appeal, please do so. And please don't comment here further.  Extending the Sai Baba battles to my talk page is a very bad idea. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks in December 2010 of User:Mbz1
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the December 2010 block of User:Mbz1. Thank you. AGK [</nowikI>&bull; ] 11:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞  Tb hotch <sup style="color:#555555;"> ™  &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  04:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #D4AF37; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">



Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are flashes of gamma rays associated with extremely energetic explosions in distant galaxies. GRBs are the most luminous electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe. A typical burst lasts 20–40 seconds, but can last from ten milliseconds to several minutes. The initial burst is usually followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitted at longer wavelengths. Most observed GRBs are believed to be a narrow beam of intense radiation released during a supernova event, as a rapidly rotating, high-mass star collapses to form a neutron star or black hole. The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years from Earth, implying that the explosions are both extremely energetic and extremely rare. GRBs were first detected in 1967 by the Vela satellites, but it was not until 1997 that they were better understood, with the use of optical spectroscopy 1997 to detect the first X-ray and optical afterglows and to directly measure their redshifts. (more...)

Your edit of a fully protected page without discussion or consensus
Your recent edit of a fully protected page without consensus or discussion on the talk page is an obvious violation of the Wikipedia protection Policy. Please revert immediately. --Noren (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you notice the 10+ day RFC that I was closing? No, probably you didn't, because there is a note there requesting that editors leave their complaints on the talk page.  Thanks, and goodbye. Jehochman Talk 20:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't say I'm surprised that that move decision barely lasted 24h. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking some advice/guidance
Hi Jehochman, I need to ask for your advice/guidance if possible, which is connected to and. As I am currently under an interaction ban with WP:EEML editors, any edits which so much as reintroduce into the article anything that was removed, could be construed as an interaction, and hence be sanctionable. As I have been just come back from a 4 day block for my edits to Russophobia, I of course would like to avoid any situations which can be used for battleground furtherment in this area. The article as it stands is a POV-ridden mess, and is full of original research, synthesis, and lack of context.

For example, the article as it stands now (and as it did in July 2010), states in the lead:

"According to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program Chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center, anti-Estonian sentiment is intentionally escalated by Kremlin in its "search for enemies".[4]"

As you can see from this edit from August 2010, I moved the statement to a relevant section, and expanded it to read:

"Within this context, according to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program Chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center, anti-Estonian sentiment was intentionally escalated by Kremlin in its "search for enemies", however she also notes that even Russian democrats took Estonia's removal of the statue immediately before one of the most respected and cherished dates in the Russian calendar, to be an affront to the Russian national honour,."

The move of this information back to the lead, along with removal of context, presents a serious POV problem with the article, but due to interaction bans, if I so much as touch it, it will essentially regarded as a revert, and hence I can be sanctioned. It also should be noted that the current version does not comply with WP:LEAD in that it introduces material which is not discussed later in the article. But mostly the lack of context is a big problem.

If you review my edits to the article from August 2010, you will notice that they are good faith, constructive edits, and go some way to help to fix the article in its then, and now current, state.

As a neutral and uninvolved administrator, could you please provide your opinion on how to approach issues such as this. Cheers, --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. I have also requested advice/guidance from FPaS here as I think it would be beneficial to seek advice from a couple of different quarters to see what different admins might suggest. And as both of you are neutral and uninvolved, I would value any input. --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw your note
Jehocman, I saw your note on my page, and yes, I absolutely agree that there are some editors causing problems on that page. Why not simply delete the page per the policy on attack pages ? (and yes, I'll do as you ask and not re-nominate it) :) KoshVorlon  Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 11:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * MY first thought was "just delete this", but looking over the CSD reason codes I didn't feel comfortable with any of them. As it now stands, the article has been retitled and refocused, which mitigates some but not all of the problems.  If you stay out of the line of fire, that will make it easier for me to remove any tendentious editors who try to use the article as an attack page. Thank you for your understanding and calm responses to all of this. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Jehocman, the article itself is an attack page.  The term was coined to disparge Rick Santorum, so any use of the term, even if it's references is automatically an attack o Rick Santorum.     This, therefore, is an attack page.

I understand you want the page to calm down, and I'll do my part (no posting on the page, no nom'ing for deleteion or anything else) as I said, but under that circumstance, policy is clear, the page needs to be deleted. Does that sound like a fair reading of policy ? KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 14:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SEOBOMB
Hi Jonathan, I wanted to add my name to your many admirers here for how you've brought some measure of sanity and organization to the Santorum/santorum mess. Jayen, I, and others have been collaborating on an essay on real or perceived Wikibombing at WP:SEOBOMB (though Jayen's been doing all the heavy lifting so far). As the primary author of Search engine optimization, would you be able to stop by and give a few thoughts? Thanks for all you do. -- Khazar (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI
You can probably effect real change to the state terrorism article at this point, without encountering the previous conditions. Best luck. V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite
So... I understand the words separately, but what does the phrase "victimized by social engineering" mean? What are you talking about? Are you lapsing into Dino Ursprache? Bishonen | talk 21:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC).


 * See Social engineering (security). "Tricked" would be a concise but less nuanced synonym. Jehochman Talk 23:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Insanity
I must apologise for demurring at your "insanity" — I hadn't read your latest link when I did. It's the only word for it, I agree. Even the tolerant Bishzilla is weirded out. Bishonen | talk 13:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Please leave the Cirt RFC to neutral admins for closure
Jehochman you are not a neutral party in that matter. You have a track record of running interference for Cirt. You are heavily involved in several of the incidents linked to by people participating in the RFC. Also, you wrote a highly non-neutral summary in your closure. Had an uninvolved admin done so I would have been OK with it. Had you closed with a neutral comment like, "Without prejudice closing because of pending arbitration" I might also been OK with it. But what you did is not OK. Please do not do it again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have a nice day, Griswaldo. Jehochman Talk 16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, RfC/Us are usually only closed after an arbitration is finally accepted - that is, after either the case pages are opened or the motion is enacted; until then, the RfC/U generally stays open. This allows RfCs to continue (without unnecessary delay/disruption) in the event that an arbitration request has been declined. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. In this case we have all the usual people repeating the same arguments.  The outcome is already clear enough.  On balance I think the value of keeping this feud page running is less than the resulting damage. If you'd like to help with management and closure of the RFC, that's fine with me.  I will not be taking further steps, because I don't edit war. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification
Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Case - I have added you to the case, after your closure of User:Cirt's RFCUser you are clearly involved now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Per which policy?  Per which diffs?  I suggest you buzz off and go do something productive.  Harassing editors with useless process is not a good use of your time. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs
When I get back on a computer instead of my iPhone you will have diffs. However they will related to your involvement on Cirts behalf on noticebaords and other such discussions. Unlike your odd demands the RFC was not about "new age religions" but about Cirts behavior. Anyway if you can wait for a few hours you'll have your diffs.Griswaldo (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Read WP:INVOLVED. I dont think you understand it. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, to close an RfC early because you don't agree with it, as you honestly stated in your summary, is ridiculous. If I can figure out how, I'm going to undo your closure.  An RfC should run for 30 days.  That is standard procedure.  Your comments would have been more appropriately expressed as an "involved view" or "outside view" in the RfC itself.  So, I'll move your remarks to that section for you.  The RfAR request served to bring more attention to the RfC, so those editors who found out about it via that exposure should have the opportunity to express their opinions in it if they so desire. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for admin intervention to ensure the RfC is allowed to continue running. Again, if you have strong feelings about the veracity of a user conduct RfC, then put your opinion as an "outside view" or whatever.  If you think it should be closed, then start a discussion thread about it on the talk page.  To unilaterally close it while saying how much you disapprove, is really, really disruptive and unhelpful. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla: back off. You're deeply partisan in this; don't try to pretend to offer impartial advice, or to act in an impartial role, because such is frankly not credible William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's too late. Once I report it to AN for administrator intervention, it's out of my hands.  If Wikipedia expects editors to use and have trust in the dispute resolution process, then the process needs to work as designed.  You should know this. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't too late. RA has reverted his revert, so it is still possible for you to revert your revert. Good news eh? Anyway: someone as deeply partisan as you shouldn't be touching this and should be well aware if that. Put it back to how it was before you touched it, now, while you still have a chance William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WMC, when I engage in dispute resolution, which as you know can be time-consuming and stressful, I expect it to work as it is designed to work. If RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days and not be considered for early closure unless an ArbCom case actually opens, not just be considered, then that needs to happen.  If the dispute resolution process isn't allowed to work, then editors have no reliable mechanism to use to resolve disputes, and Wikipedia descends further into chaos and anarchy.  It's unfortunate that I've had to request administrator intervention to ensure the process is allowed to continue without interference. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In case you missed it
In case you missed it:. Perhaps you misunderstood me, or I misunderstood you. Either way, some clarification would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a huge time suck.  I closed an RFC, which was confirmed by another admin.  If you don't like my closure, go appeal some place else and leave me out of it.  Any action on Wikipedia may be disputed and overturned.  Jehochman Talk 03:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

COIs
I came across you on the SEOMoz article and read your essay for SEO pros. I started on a similar one for Marketing & PR on Wikipedia a while back. I was curious if this: "Edit for hire is a very bad idea" was because a paid editor is unlikely to be neutral or because of the general media stigma? CorporateM (Talk) 22:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Edit for hire is bad because (1) people won't pay fair rates for the service for the time it would take to shepherd an article through the process, (2) it is likely to create all sorts of arguments, (3) the idea is contentious. I don't do any paid editing, though people offer me all the time.  My reply is to give them a bit of free help and point them to the relevant policies and processes that might resolve their concerns.  It's not that paid editing is immoral, it's just not efficient.  Jehochman Talk 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. All true in my experience. It creates a contentious relationship with clients, because I want them to do what's right, and they want a Wikipedia article that is aligned with corporate messaging. It would be different if the internal staffer had to take responsibility for the content. They have strong opinions about themselves and often have a skewed perspective on what's neutral (or in some cases don't even want to be neutral). It's a tough (and thankless) job to actually do it right. On the other hand, I know Wikipedia would not be better off if Sig Mejdal wrote his own article or if I didn't help JMP make their article less promotional. Someone's gotta do it who actually wants to do it right. CorporateM (Talk) 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you proceed with that, I recommend a few personal guidelines:


 * 1) Ask clients or anybody else to post their requests publicly on the relevant talk page.  When somebody emails me, I generally tell them to post in public, then I might help.  If somebody emails and doesn't want to post, I would post the contents of the email and say that you were emailed.
 * 2) If you are editing for pay, you should say so.  People will get very annoyed if there is asymmetrical information.  If you know something and they don't, and then they figure it out, you will get a lot of unnecessary drama.
 * 3) Explain to clients that it isn't possible to bull stuff into Wikipedia, and they should realize that having a page is a risk because negative stuff will go into it.
 * I hope that helps. Jehochman Talk 15:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course. In general I follow the WP:BRIGHTLINE of not directly editing articles. Instead I disclose my affiliation and offer content for consideration by neutral editors the same way I might - with traditional media - offer a contributed article without astroturfing their paper. I'm working on getting to a point where I have standardized on GA-quality work for each article.


 * I think the biggest difference between PR with media and PR on Wikipedia is that journalists expect PRs to be bias, while Wikipedians expect us to be editor replacements; to be neutral. Every client signs my statement of ethics, which has a no omissions policy, but in practice enforcing it is no easy task.


 * Most of my clients already have articles - some are multi-billion dollar companies - but it is often the case that as we expand and improve the article, some expansion/improving is needed for the less flattering aspects as well. CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW - regarding Cantaloupe2, this RFCU may be of interest to you. I noticed you two were interacting on the Search Engine Optimization page. CorporateM (Talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I avoid that editor. He goes around damaging articles just to get his jollies.  He'll delete perfectly good content, insert outdated stuff, and frustrate the hell out of any reasonable editor. Jehochman Talk 16:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hence the RFCU ;-)


 * I was a little timid too because I didn't want to attract more harassment, but I think it's a substantial retention issue that must be dealt with.


 * BTW - if you're interested, you can see my approach to COI on the Talk page of RTI International. I think whether the participation is well-received depends on the results. Companies that are able to be honest and neutral will have happy Wikipedians. Some companies have a harder time than others, so it's my task to work on getting more consistency among a diverse client base and being more stern about meeting my standards. In this case they did a terrific job and did everything I suggested.


 * My pitch is that each company wants to build trusting, long-term relationships with Wikipedians, so they need to avoid behavior that puts that at risk.


 * Anyways, happy chatting with you.CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Attention lurkers
Hi talk page lurkers. Somebody wanted to start an article at Ugo Colombo (real estate). I provided a bit of technical assistance, but this article needs content review, and we need to answer the question whether this is a proper topic for an article (notable) or not. If anybody watching my talk page wants to help out, that would be good for Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey
At the risk of giving Cantaloupe2 something new to fume about, I followed the link to your page from Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2 and recognized the picture right away. Nice. I used to fly out of South Meadows in Farmington all the time, so my view was slightly different, but it is unmistakable anyway. Then I started to check out Talk:Search engine optimization and came across "Great, now we have two new tags:" and thought, "man, this guy sounds just like me". It's a small world, ain't it? Best of luck. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yale
That's awesome man! Yale undergrad and grad, I was deferred if that counts for anything. Ryan Vesey 15:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was good at paperwork. Computer Science is a small department so most courses are numbered for undergrad and grad.  Hence, two degrees instead of one, but I only needed to take 36 courses total, all subjects. Jehochman Talk 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How many years? I had a friend graduate from Penn last year with a BA and a Masters in Criminology, I believe he only spent 4 years getting it.  I've got another friend who is submatriculating in the Vagelos Scholars Program in Molecular Life Sciences. Ryan Vesey 15:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 4 years. Jehochman Talk 15:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Superbowl
I found one example immediately requiring a sufficient reference: "Because of the February 3 date of Super Bowl XLVII, the 2013 Mardi Gras calendar in Orleans Parish was changed. Parades scheduled for February 3 and before were moved ahead one week. The same situation occurred in 2002 when the 9/11 attacks caused a one-week delay in the 2001 NFL season, causing Super Bowl XXXVI to fall within the Mardi Gras parade calendar." Among others. Because of the vast amount of unreferenced material, I can certainly understand why admins at ITN are loath to post this article. The burden is on those who have nominated the article to sufficiently update it. Any suggestion that withholding this article from the main page is part of a greater conspiracy is a bald accusation of bad faith. --WaltCip (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, not a conspiracy, just a natural group dynamic. This article is in much better shape already than many that get published, and are currently published.  The regulars are taking offense at newcomers, and this is not good at all. Please comment on that idea, if you will, in substance, rather than dismissively. Jehochman Talk 15:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The proper place to discuss such an idea is at an WP:RFC or WP:AN if you feel the issue deserves outside attention...--WaltCip (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's actually proper to take up this issue directly with the people involved first, rather than to run to WP:AN and stir the pot. Why is it that you don't want to discuss my concerns? Jehochman Talk 16:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration request
Thanks for your comment at ArbCom. I was going to let your misinformation stand at the ArbCom request, but since you have now repeated it and are open to making clarifications, I thought I'd give a hint at a small part of what's to come in this case. I want to make you aware that James Cantor is considered an activist in his field by his peers. See Hebephilia: quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality: "Such legal skirmishes over the validity of hebephilia lend an air of urgency to attempts by an activist minority in the mental health ﬁeld to legitimize it as a bona ﬁde psychiatric disorder." Note that much of my concern surrounds Cantor's use of Wikipedia to defame that author Karen Franklin (and me) as he does off-wiki after badly losing his battle to codify hebephilia. The broad consensus of medical and legal experts (over 90% in some surveys) objects to his minority views and successfully stopped those views from being codified in the DSM-5.

Your comments represent a perfect example of the exact systemic bias I plan to address, a kind of unfortunate scientism that assumes "scientists" cannot possibly be activists, and that professional academics and other socially-credentialed producers of knowledge get a presumption of innocence by others in the industry when called out for bad behavior by those harmed by that behavior. It's one of the reasons I left University of Chicago and academia. This bias would be laughable if it didn't cause actual harm to real people. I will have much, much more to say on this if the case is accepted. I appreciate your not devolving into invective on the request page, and I encourage you to wait on sharing other early impressions until you hear all evidence in this extraordinarily complicated matter. Thanks again. Jokestress (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Scientists and academics can be extremely obsessive and activistic too. It depends on how they behave.  As a general guideline, when somebody identifies themselves as an activist, that strongly suggests they aren't going to be neutral in the areas of their activism.  An academic purports (notice I used that word before) to be neutral, objective, logical, rational and informed. If they are, Wikipedia should welcome them.  If they aren't, they need to be politely told to back away (or restrained from editing).  I hope this clarification helps. Jehochman Talk 22:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, I'm a bit surprised by your latest comment on the Arbcom page. I suspect that you may have missed some important parts of the peer-reviewed article. If it is to be believed (and in fact it seems to be confirmed by the NYT article), then AJ has stepped firmly outside the bounds of civilized society in a specific way that should make her and everyone else who has acted in that way persona non grata on this project. And she has already quizzed WLU about his identity, giving reason for serious concern. I am not at all surprised that when she did that, he denied personal information which he had much earlier freely admitted (and which she found). There is no way we can allow individuals like that on the project before we have started a program for guaranteeing every editor's anonymity. This person is using fear of limitless off-wiki persecution by a maniac as a tool for winning editing conflicts.
 * You don't have to search for the needle in the haystack; I have quoted the relevant passages on my talk page. Hans Adler 22:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't competent to judge things that happen elsewhere. I think this case is limited to what happened between the editors on wiki, or via email if the email and editor feature was used. For other things, call the police, or call WMF.  ArbCom can't address those other things. Jehochman Talk 02:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I pointed you to the wrong talk page. The citation I meant is at User talk:Beyond My Ken. The argument that Wikipedians are not competent to judge that text would appear fundamentalist and against common sense to me. Hans Adler 09:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the offended parties should go to court. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for them to argue for justice.  What we are concerned about is editing of the encyclopedia.  It can be noted that the parties or some of the parties are engaged in an off-wiki feud.  That might be an aggravating factor if it is found that there are editing defects. Jehochman Talk 13:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING
OK so I know you aren't my biggest fan ;). I need a little help and I'd prefer it from someone who I don't always agree with. I am involved at Bill Browder and I didn't completely understand the WP:OUTING policy, and I outed someone. I don't want to go into diffs again so I don't violate it in seeking help, It was not intentional and oversight was requested and completed. I do not want to violate this policy again so I read the policy and so I made a completely different claim using comments made by the user merely saying it appeared they have a COI. This lead to an accusation that I was edit warring. I have very clearly sought help explaining the policy how the second comment was against policy as I did not add information that said where that person worked, merely that the person appeared to have a conflict of interest [] and no where near the original comment that was not in line with our guidelines[]. I think that the first two comments really made the editors in question just think anything I was saying was a violation but if it really was I need to know how the second comment was a violation so I do not repeat, as I want to follow wiki policy. Can you please offer some guidance in this so I don't screw up again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did/do you have any help for me in this matter? I would really appreciate it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you can simply move forward and not dwell on a past, inadvertent error. Focus on the content. I left comments already to try to move the talk page discussion in a more productive direction. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cla68/Kevin arbitration
FYI, you were mentioned by an arbiter at the arbitration case that ensued from Kevin's unblock of Cla68. As I opined, I find it distressing in no small way that an arbiter seems to believe that expressing an opinion about the appropriateness of an unblock is now something actionable. Anyway, I'm not trying to fork the discussion - I just wanted to make you aware that you were mentioned in case you wish to opine on the case. --B (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying me. What an outrageous and stupid comment by an arbitrator. Jehochman Talk 17:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As we both appear to be accused of similar misdeeds, I though you might like to see this. It appears that all this "communication" that was going on amounts to virtually zip, nada, bubkis, zilch (you get the idea) for over 4 days. Just thought you might like to know that. — Ched :  ?  23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that being added as parties is an accusation of misdeeds? Both of you, acting in good faith, posted Cla's views and inadvertently laid a gumption trap for Kevin. Lessons should be learnt by all, particularly by admins who think that bold unblocks don't need care and attention. . . dave souza, talk 00:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the wording of Silk Tork's post that upset me. I thought it implied bad faith, and a lack of diligence and consideration.  I found it to be extremely offensive and insulting.  I would have no problem participating in a case, but his accusation that (in my case anyway, I don't propose to speak for Jonathan (although I'd be utterly shocked if I heard that he ever acted in anything but a considered manner)) I/we failed to "check" prior to posting is an outright falsehood.  Now I don't know if he considers us the "exceptions" to the AGF guideline, or himself exempt from following it, but either way I was flabbergasted to see such a comment from an Arb. — Ched :  ?  00:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Ched: As I've said in my case statement – in retrospect, it would have been better if a formal message from Arbcom had been placed on Cla68's talk page stating that confidential discussions were in progress, discouraging such indirect communication. Did you do anything specific to "check" prior to posting? You two made a suggestion as of 18:11, 3 March, at 19:37 Beeblebrox said he'd email WP:BASC and at 22:38 you posted the first comment from Cla68. I don't see anyone saying not to post Cla's statements, even though NW had commented, but that's not positive agreement. . . dave souza, talk 10:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Jehochman, I retract my questions and you're welcome to delete them. I've not seen any requirement or mechanism for Silk Tork's idea of "checking" prior to posting, and it seems impractical. The points you're raising in various places look pretty good to me, and it's no longer my intention to add anything to my case statement about this aspect. . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. I think there's been a lot of misunderstandings surrounding this affair. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Dave. First, my apologies for the delay in reply.  I'm fully willing to answer any questions to ANY of my actions on wiki, and may indeed offer what I checked; but will do so either at the case or at Silk Tork's talk page as it seems more relevant there.  At present, while I can appreciate the magnanimous gesture of an apology offered to Jehochman, I am less than satisfied with the current situation.  I am content to wait a bit longer and shall watch for any changes to the current statement(s) on the case page.  To say that I was less than enthused with how the committee as a whole has handled (is handling) the entire situation would be somewhat of an understatement;  but I'm willing to be patient a bit rather than adding fuel to the current fire.
 * Jonathan, I want to thank you for the use of your talk page, and also offer enormous gratitude for your efforts in all. Personally I think your actions have been exemplary.  My own are for others to decide.  I'll trouble you no further with the annoying "new messages" banner unless I feel that something is pertinent.  Thank you again, and best wishes to both of you and your respective families. — Ched :  ?  03:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)