User talk:Jehochman/Archive 8

Thanks for unblocking me
Thank you, Mr. Jehochman for unblocking me, because I didn't know that deleting of my talk page is a violation so thank you again..... thank you again--Gabriel mark (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org
I don't think there was any concerted linkspamming going on for that site; rather, especially in the early days of Wikipedia, it was one of the few sites that contained information about a lot of different small religious groups and thus got used as a convenient 'more info' link by people writing the earlier versions of many articles.

It's similar to many pages' having links to IMDB despite IMDB not being the most reliable source - it's a convenient and attractive link target if the Wikipedia author isn't being all that careful about good sourcing.

It's the typical Wikipedia problem - Wikipedia being the condensed result of the top 20 Google hits for any topic, regardless of those sites' quality. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha. So the site has become Wikipedia-specific meme.  What's so peculiar is that they are very heavily linked from Wikipedia, but not from many other places.  How odd, but the internet is a big place so improbable things are bound to happen. Jehochman Talk 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman -

I noticed your comments at the AfD for the religioustolerance.org article. In case you haven't seen it yet, you may be interested in this thread: Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Although the article survived AfD, that does not convey reliability for its wide usage on Wikipedia. The question of religioustolerance.org as a source comes up regularly (it's been discussed several times in various forums, including a dedicated page here: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org).

Since there is currently a thread running at the RS noticeboard, it seems like a good idea to seek some sort of consensus statement that can be linked when questions come up in the future regarding the use of that site as a source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion/inclusion of 3tera
I am writing concerning the deletion of a recent article I submitted about 3tera. It was removed as "blatant advertising". While undoubtedly 3tera is a commercial enterprise, entries about companies does not seem to be inconsistent with Wikipedia. There are many thousands of entries for companies along with a description of their services.
 * (added Jehochman Talk 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

In the case of 3tera, they are clearly a pioneer in utility/cloud computing space, clearly meet the notability requirement (included are citations from Linux World, Inc Magazine and Forrester Research, among others) and deserving of mention. Google shows over 5000 brand searches for 3tera every month.

I am having a hard time understanding the distinction between 3tera and Redhat Linux, for example. I certainly don't understand how an article for a company like Flexiscale, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexiscale can be OK and yet a 3tera submission is viewed as blatant advertising.

Clearly I welcome any additions, edits or contributions regarding 3tera, but it seems clear that an article about them is appropriate and that this should be referenced in the sections about utility computing and cloud computing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah Stein (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist messages
I do hope this is some sort of joke. :-D --Wikiacc (¶) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, somebody asked me to post it, and though I disagree with watchlist messages, I felt that their good faith request should be honored. I have just nominated the watchlist messages page for deletion.  Please do comment! Jehochman Talk 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it to DRV, but I'm standing by the close. It's a textbook WP:SNOW action. XFD is not to force non-deletion changes. Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I was told that we cannot delete MediaWiki pages, but we certainly can blank them. It seems like you are supporting the rules for the sake of rules, rather than doing what is best for the project. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the page is beginning to repeat itself with suggestions, with each user starting their own section. I thought of writing a summary of all the main points on the talk page under a single section, and people can briefly comment on whether they agree or disagree. What do you think? It would help us to predict what will happen and what to do next. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, do not take it to DRV. From a DRV perspective "merge" is the same as "keep", so DRV clearly won't care about the different keep with limits opinions; they will be treated as 100% keep. Take it to an RfC, or better yet go back to the talk page and keep working until consensus is reached. GRBerry 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Adice
I don't know what an adice is, but since you went to Yale, I'll just pretend to understand this as "advice", and publicly mock you at the next regatta. I've replied to your remarks, and don't know what else to add, except that, as a fellow programmer, I can suggest that it's a mistake to apply the so-called "New Jersey method" to human relations. Not your mistake, but perhaps a legitimate criticism of the project. -- Kendrick7talk 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That was as inevitable as the sun rising in the East, which only makes the community's impatience all the more remarkable. Do you read anything I write or do your eyes just glaze over? I suppose it's just as well to start with the sinners and work my way back to the saints, but I'm no Saint Peter. I think I'll go alphabetically from here on out. -- Kendrick7talk 06:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS
Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) is not a page where one would normally expect consensus to develop, but in fact it has, around a tangential issue. . You may want to review the diff and the guideline, and consider striking the comment. Jd2718 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting here. I am comfortable with my remarks. Jehochman Talk 07:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

SA/Elonka
You posted at SA's talk page "Hi, Elonka. I am uncomfortable with you blocking this editor and request that you not undertake any further administrative actions with respect to them. I think you are insufficiently objective to use tools in this instance." SA has repeatedly attacked administrators as any and all of 1) unsuitable to administer, 2) involved, 3) vandals if they prove that they are willing to sanction him. This was recently on ANI, where there was a clear administrative consensus that Elonka is acting reasonably - even you agreed that before the thread ended.  Repeating SA's attack memes isn't a great idea, and will just end up encouraging him.  GRBerry 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have enough administrators that somebody uninvolved can rotate in and block SA. That said, repeated short blocks are not a good strategy.  SA has been handled very badly all along.  A long series of block has been placed, yet there has been no improvement whatsoever.  Continuing that sequence is just creating drama without creating benefit. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think the community is ready for a long block or topic ban for him? I don't think the community is ready for a long block.  But I could be wrong; he has been getting less visible support than he used to.  The short block strategy does appear to have the effect of eliminating opposition to a stronger remedy, if we can figure out what a good one would be.  I definitely believe that your approach has not been creating any benefit.  So we need a new approach to get SA to actually change his behavior.  I don't have any good ideas myself.  GRBerry 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bout' that. Let me refactor the comment that offends you. No harm intended, I just wish all of the drama would cease :/ It's good that we are on the same page about the primary issue, though. We have been discussing this off-Wiki for a while, among quite a few administrators, who are fed up with the inaction and the cuddling that occurs whenever SA or any of the gang is blocked for any extended duration. Short blocks are ineffective but are short enough to fly under the radar -- i.e. there doesn't need to be an ANI thread regarding it that only fuels the drama more. seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I appreciate your help, really, really. Jehochman Talk 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I only had a basic, basic draft up. SA has went on a "wikibreak." seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  01:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW
Please don't use the snowball clause as a reasoning for closing RfAs where the contributor is not a new user. The primary purpose of the snowball clause is to avoid driving new users, who don't understand the RfA mechanism, off the project. Shalom is clearly not one of those cases, and while I agree that the RfA is unlikely to pass at this point, please let him withdraw if he wishes to do so. Ral315 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please do not use the rollback tool to revert good-faith edits. Ral315 (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time, I did not think Giggy's edit was good faith, because they did not leave me any sort of message. Sorry if I have misunderstood the situation. Jehochman Talk 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the close due to your objection. If anyone objects to a WP:SNOW action, then it should be undone.  It is unwise to let this pile on continue because it will result in hurt feelings and greater strife within the community. Can you point me to the relevant discussion where this distinction between new and established users is explained?  I would like further information about that. Jehochman Talk 05:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Giggy was one of the co-nominators of the RfA, but if you didn't realize that I can see you might not see good faith. No big deal.


 * I'm not sure if there is really a policy on the snowball clause, but my experience is that it can inflame the situation with some experienced users; more than a few users have had their RfAs snowballed, then reverted the closing, sparking an edit war. In other cases, there's a disagreement as to whether it should be snowballed, and other users revert it, sparking an edit war.  For a different kind of example, there was an RfA I closed at about 60% support as "SNOW" when the user said he was leaving Wikipedia; it turned out that he was staying, wanted the RfA to continue, and he actually passed.


 * As a general rule, unless those commenting are getting extremely out of hand (i.e. a serious argument, wild accusations, etc.), I think RfAs of experienced users should be allowed to continue until they withdraw. It might also be worth bringing up on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, to see if other users agree.  Ral315 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Update, seeing you reverted) If you have no objections, I'll bring it up on the bureaucrats' noticeboard; RfA regulars usually pay attention there, and their opinion would probably be helpful.  Ral315 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It may help to create documentation for those who are new to this, like me. This is only the second or third RFA that I've (snow) closed. Thanks! Jehochman Talk 05:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a lot of people disagree on what SNOW should constitute. :)  You might want to look at WP:NOTNOW, which is a better way to phrase it if you're telling someone you snowed an RfA.  I really think NOTNOW should replace SNOW, as it's much more helpful in my opinion.  Also, check out a brief discussion of SNOW from last year that I think is helpful for determining when to SNOW an RfA.  Ral315 (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing????????
There's massive evidence linking BlueGoblin to numerous sock accounts, but of course he's going to deny it. Have you asked East about the evidence? Don't just unblock users without knowing the full facts which you have done in this case.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ryan. I am taking this to RFCU, and if there is massive socking, we are going to block ALL the accounts, not just one.  Patience.  If things are as you say, they will all be blocked shortly.  If not, an innocent user is saved.  If there is massive evidence of socking, surely there would be a WP:RFCU or WP:SSP report documenting all of it, with a prominent link in the block notice.


 * All that aside, if this account goes one step out of line, feel free to reblock it for any sort of bad behavior. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, socking doesn't have to have an SSP or RFCU report. The findings were made because of the IRC IP's used. Chris and BG used the same IP, they both identified and had Wikimedia cloaks corresponding to their respective accounts. Their useragents are also exactly the same. It's fairly clear cut evidence that they're socks, yet you unblock without getting involved in any discussion about it?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I read through the evidence and already saw what you are telling me, and I believe East718. Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegoblin7 will resolve the matter. I am watching the user's talk page, as are many others.  If they step one inch out of line, they will be reblocked.  Blocks are to prevent harm.  No harm is going to occur.  Please be slightly patient and this matter will be completely resolved.  If there was serious socking, why did folks wait to file WP:RFCU?  It's important to work step by step, to document evidence and to do a thorough job. Jehochman Talk 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I forward you the emails?There's a lot of them.(I have no idea why I was contacted)But I need to know your email address.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on to them for a moment. Are you suggesting sock puppetry, or do you think there is no socking here? Jehochman Talk 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's highly confusing situation. I received emails from two addresses both claiming to be BG7.One:bluegoblin@hotmail.co.uk. Two:bluegoblin7@hotmail.co.uk. During the ANI thread I received emails mocking me trolling etc that confessed guilt but mocked me saying nobody believed me etc. The emails from Chris were more "help me please" emails.But before that he did trolling and a legal threat as well. The emails from "BG7" alleged BG7 had hacked Chem's acct on on another wiki and made socks spreading suspicion to here getting Chem blocked indef as a sock of Chris19910. The emails basically said that BG7 framed Chem. It could be a impersonator or BG7 really does: BG7=Chem=Chris. But I don't know....it's one of the most confusing things I've ever been mucked up in. I'm still wondering why I was contacted with all this.It's up to the checkusers Jehochman. Still the evidence submitted by East718 made me believe. I believe BG7 is the same person as Chris19910 and Chemistrygeek(A sock of Chris)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 16:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you know! Checkuser came back ❌. Good thing I unblocked the user before a big shitstorm developed. When you combine IRC with a faulty sock block, that could have really set off a riot. Jehochman Talk 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Promethean
Then I suggest you delete that particular information from his user page as well. Certainly, I would not have disclosed that information had he not done it himself.--Atlan (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "I’m a 17 Yr old Australian bloke. I'm presently studying Yr 11," he says. I think that's OK.  In that case, your statement could have been received as a personal attack, so it's best to have been removed.  Feel free to restate your argument. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman Talk 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I obviously should have read better. Also, why delete the entire message? I replaced it partially.--Atlan (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I could have redacted part of the message, I suppose, but it seemed better to remove the whole thing, tell you, and let you reformulate the message the way you liked since you appeared to still be online. Jehochman Talk 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced?
I think you may have put this comment in the wrong place diff. It doesn't make a lot of sense on WT:AN in a new section of it's own. Just a heads up. James086 Talk &#124; Email 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, thanks for the clue. Jehochman Talk 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

wpcite and FF3
Hi! I found your wpcite add-on very useful under Firefox 2. Since upgrading to FF3 I can't get it to run: trying to install it from the download link on your user page tells me:

Now I'm not afraid to tinker with code so I tried to adjust the version number in the install.rdf file, which I read is a trick that allows many add-ons to run. Indeed, this allowed wpcite to start, but on choosing the right-click menu option on any webpage I get the error:

which has stumped me. I don't know much about Java and less about the workings of Firefox (VB and Perl used to be my toys). I may even have re-zipped the xpi wrongly. Is it possible you could fix it, or give me a pointer to what may be wrong, please? I'm surprised no-one else has commented about this as it's such a useful tool - can I be the only one for whom it's not working under FF3? —S MALL JIM   16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any feedback on this? Even if it's "I'm not interested." :-) —S MALL  JIM   18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given the assignment to one of my programmers. They will take care of it as soon as they have a spare moment.  We're under a bunch of deadlines right now, and in fact, I had to hire another person this week to keep up with the crush. Jehochman Talk 19:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And there was me thinking you were just a guy doing all this for fun in his spare time! Well, many thanks for any help you or your staff can give. Best, —S MALL  JIM   19:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I designed the tool and helped create a JavaScript version that can be installed in the web page (as opposed to the browser). One of my team knew how to build Firefox extensions, so I let him do that. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I will restore your comment, but it's bizarre that you would complain about one comment when you removed all of mine. Please don't continue to attack me. I have really had enough of it, as I hope you can see from my posts tonight. SlimVirgin talk| edits 08:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think you should restore the posts yourself, but please do not blank any more comments. You are involved in this, given what I've been told about your posts on the case. I haven't seen them myself, but they sound pretty unpleasant and biased. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 08:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should read the case pages yourself, rather than forming judgments second hand. Jehochman Talk 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't I just bribe you both with a goldenchip? El_C 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The conduct on that thread is bringing the project into disrepute. Chippetting may help restore good karma. Jehochman Talk 08:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * True! The chippies are timid and easily frighten, however. El_C 08:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

She restored Dayewalker's comment, but not yours. Cla68 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored mine. I feel sorry for her. Jehochman Talk 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kudos
I have to say, this edit summary was rather enjoyable... nicely done. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  17:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. My typing leaves room for improvement.  I meant that we had crossed the spam event horizon. Jehochman Talk 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reread - he's quoting someone else
JoshuaZ is quoting someone else, I think you misread it. ATren (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I fixed it. He should provide a diff, because I don't know what he's talking about. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it confused me at first too. ATren (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That diff was block worthy, but not five days later! Jehochman Talk 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gdewilde
You indef-blocked him (good) and he says he's left on his own (in that order of events, if I read the timestamps correctly:). Your block left open the possibility of an promise to change his ways. However, he keeps popping back up to remove the block-notice from his talk page and misc combative and unreceptive (as usual) response. Do you want to (or do you mind if I) protect his talk-page? He obviously has no intent to reform anytime soon IMO. DMacks (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As the blocking administrator, I would not like to protect his talk page. If he keeps gabbing endlessly, I predict that somebody else will take that step. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing arbcom statement
"When no defense is possible, attack," seems to be the strategy that has been employed." Do you think perhaps you could explain to whom exactly this statement refers? Is it specific to one or more of the parties, or is it a general comment on all who are involved in this situation? Employed by whom? Right now it just stands out as a completely unsupported statement.  Your clarification would be helpful for those of us following along.  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar
A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Negative Spin on company page
I am concerned than someone is using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennar to create negative spin about Lennar. Specifically, the "Controversy" section consists of inflammatory allegation and misleading information without any other details about the company, its history or the thousands of communities they have developed.

I am not sure of the protocol or how editorial decisions are made to balance negative information with other facts about the company. Clearly, every company encounters difficulties along the way, but it seems inappropriate for their wikipedia listing to consist primarily of a section highlighting these issues.

Any clarification would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.13.160 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a look and did a bit of editing to bring the article into better compliance with policy. Jehochman Talk 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI. Your are being put on notice:

tasks
I've been patrolling CAT:CSD for the last few days - I think I've got the hang of it. Any advice on where to work next?--Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now try CAT:PROD. These are a bit more complex because you have to make sure they are "ripe", and then make sure the article really needs to be deleted.  Just because everyone has ignored the prod, you can still choose to remove it rather then deleting.  Also make sure the main contributor was notified.  If so, you can delete, keep or send to AfD.  Jehochman Talk 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, and thanks--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

likely ban-evading sockpuppet of Ideogram
User:Slashem is a likely sockpuppet of User:Ideogram. Slashem earliest edit was (attacking Giano) and his experience in his earliest edits strong suggest that it's not a new account. His userpage, which is currently blank, is also very interesting. , read all the previous version. User:Ideogram was community banned for 1 year last August after a series of policy violation. His longtime grudge toward Giano and his friends (Geogre, Bishonen, etc) are long-documented. see Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence for example. (full disclosure: I was a named party in that arbCom case, but I'm being completely objective. see User:Bishonen/ArbCom_appeal_for_Certified.Gangsta for background) I urge admins to look at this matter carefully. I think ban-evading sockpuppetry is very evident. Since you are the initiator of Ideogram's community ban and someone who is familiar with his pattern/target, I sincerely hope you can take a close look at this.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Blnguyen took care of it already. Jehochman Talk 12:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But shouldn’t the main account 1 year block also be restarted?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You may point this out to Blnguyen. Jehochman Talk 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you’re an admin too. Shouldn’t be too controversial to restart the community ban on Ideogram for another year (original ban set to expire this month), will it? (similar example) He had essentially been running free since April, 2008, showing complete disrespect for wikipedia policy and we don’t know how many other socks he had operated before that? I am also told Ideogram has been using the screen name “Slashem” on IRC for several months now. I’m surprised nobody took the initiative to block the ban-evading sock on sight until I raised the issue.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette
Thanks, that was very kind of you. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh oh, I spoke to soon. Perusnarkp has removed your "resolved" notice. Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, oh, he's done it again. Very, very tiresome. Groan. Mathsci (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you feel that there is sock or meat puppetry, please gather the evidence and file WP:SSP. In the alternative, if this account persists in campaigning to insert unreliable, negative information into a WP:BLP article, they should be blocked by another administrator. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci
Dear Jehochman, Thanks for looking into the wikiquette noticeboard. However, it is undeniable that User:Mathsci did use that epithet (as you can verify easily). Could you please tell me why you placed a resolved tag on that dispute? If you feel that it was justified under the circumstances, please place an appropriate post. However, I would like to let neutral editors weigh in on this by viewing the evidence for themselves. thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I placed a resolved tag after reviewing the diffs and deciding that no action was required. You have been rattling around the wiki trying to stir up trouble for an otherwise good contributor.  Please stop. Jehochman Talk 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
*******Can we move this to Lennar Discussion page?*****--David Tornheim (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Feel free to tidy up this thread and move the relevant part(s) to that page. Jehochman Talk 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Two users are hereby being put on notice for continuing vandalism to this article by removing sourced text in the controversy section of this--Lennar Corporation--article:


 * Jehochman
 * Kneakie1

It is my understanding that if this behavior is continued, penalties such as being blocked from future edits to this site may be imposed.

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is partially my fault I suppose. I should have been more clear on what constitutes vandalism during my conversation with this user. I warned User:Kneakie1 for deleting the controversy section entirely, without discussion, and for turning the article into a soapbox. I guess David was under the wrong impression of what constitutes vandalism, and what does not. I apologize for not better explaining things to him, and I'll be more careful with new users in the future. Landon1980 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, thank you. I understand that company officials may be frustrated with uneven handling of their article, and that they may take matters into their own hands.  I intend to prevent that.  But if we ask them to be hands off, we need to ensure that neutral point of view is followed.  They do have a point that their Wikipedia page should not become, intentionally or unintentionally, an attack piece.  Jehochman Talk 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, I'm not really experienced enough to know when that is or isn't the case though. I became involved while patrolling the recent changes. The deleting of the controversy section entirely without reason is what caught my eye. I don't really have an opinion beyond that. Here lately I have been doing quite a lot of vandalism fighting, but I usually only revert blatant vandalism. I try my best to stay away from content disputes. I trust you will do the right thing regarding this, so if you will watch the article I can be done with it. Landon1980 (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck out the original Notice of Violation above. Sorry for the misunderstanding.  However, I did write a long piece about my confusion about Wikipedia policies and "majority views".  I suppose I agree that the page should not be exclusively an "attack piece" on the corporation any more than it should be an advertisement.  However, each of these views have legitimacy, and evidence to back them up, so why sensor them?  What constitutes an "expert" or "expert knowledge" of a corporation, its practices, its belief, its utility/futility/value, its affect on the economy, customers, workers, etc. I know Wikipedia has guidelines on writing about people, but what about corporations and other institutions?--David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

See also: I know the above is wrong, but close.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also with regard to neutral point of view, this policy I find interesting but confusing too. I presented a fact and a source.  However, there may well be other facts and sources.  I may or may not know about them.  I may or may not have hours to spend researching or looking for a view that doesn't even interest me to begin with.  If someone contends that there are other facts and sources, shouldn't the burden be on the person asserting the other facts and sources to dig them up and present the "other side(s)"?  rather that just deleting well-documented verifiable information that took the time and labor of the person who present that side.


 * What if, for example, there was ONLY information that Lennar Corporation did X (and that X means Y) and no information that Lennar Corpration did not do X (or X does not mean Y or X means Z)? Why would I be required to present a view that is unavailable?  I have seen NUMEROUS sites that have omitted conflicting opinions--opinions that seemed particularly obvious to me.  Can I just go and delete willy-nilly when I even SUSPECT an opposing view has been supressed but I don't even know for sure?  I seriously doubt you would want that?  I assumed the responsibility was mine to present and document opposing views if it bothered me that I didn't see them, rather than delete the hard work of others presenting a view I suspect is incomplete.  But perhaps not???  This policy seems to me to ENCOURAGE DELETION of very high quality writing.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, your complaint is actually very usual on the talk pages of controversial articles, when one editor starts adding lots of sources for one of the POVs on the article, and someone deletes most of it claiming WP:UNDUE.


 * At that point, editors are supossed to go to the talk page and reach a consensus through discussion, or should I say a WP:CONSENSUS, which is based on facts on wikipedia policies and not just agreement between editors, and use the steps described at WP:DR dispute resolution when they can't reach a consensus.


 * Notice that all these policies and guidelines are based on greater or lesser degree on Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which claims that you can reach objective thruth by discussion, and starts by assuming that there is such a thing as an objective thruth (in this particular case, assuming that there exists one and only one objective thruth about when sll POVs are given an adequate weight, and assuming that this thruth can be discovered thorught discussion......) You can blame Jimbo Wales for being a fanboi of Ayn Rand for founding wikipedia upon those principles. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shrug. When expanding an article, it is often helpful to add proportional doses of facts from each main point of view.  To describe something completely, you need to say what it is, what it isn't, why it is good, and why it is bad.  I am not an objectivist so much; more an armchair anarchist. It is not our job to tell the reader what to think!  We should present a complete and accurate picture and let the reader decide what they want to believe. Jehochman Talk 02:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses and further information. I read up on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR dispute resolution.   It does not surprise me to hear that a key developer of Wikipedia founded Wikipedia on a principle that "you can reach objective truth by discussion, and starts by assuming that there is such a thing as an objective truth."  I did notice that the NPOV page addresses the complaint, "There's no such thing as objectivity":


 * Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the 'neutrality' policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible....Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them.
 * If there is anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to describe disputes in such a way that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively. Whether this is possible is an empirical question, not a philosophical one.
 * If there is anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to describe disputes in such a way that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively. Whether this is possible is an empirical question, not a philosophical one.


 * I can't say I truly understand what the second paragraph means. It seems to be founded on some assumption you regarding the nature of truth that I'm not entirely sure I agree with.


 * So, let's get back to the meat here. The undeniable fact I presented can no doubt be described as one perspective on the company, among countless others.  It is alleged this is a "minority view".  However, I see no evidence for that.  Why is it a "minority view"?  How can you know that?  Is there a "majority view"?  If so what is it?  I have seen no evidence for another view--only silence and deletion and censorship.  By deleting it, my impression is that the "majority view" is NOTHING and emptiness.


 * Also, there is a comment describing the company and its products. That text has no source AT ALL.  I believe anyone can, therefore, delete it.  It seems to be encouraged, in fact.  It seems to me, the policy encourages us to say nothing and that everything should be deleted.  But please, correct me if I am wrong.


 * Finally, in case there is any question, I'm not satisfied with the status quo, where my deleted text remains deleted. Although reasons were given for the deletion, I don't really see any of them as valid or convincing, which I explained in detail.  The Board's decision (regardless of whether the Board's opinion is biased or based on false information, reached through question processes, etc.) is a documented fact and, for better or for worse, has some affect on the company and people's impression of the company.


 * I'm stating my dissatisfaction with the status quo of having that text deleted, because according to the rules, during a discussion of opposing views "consensus" is to be reached. Also, according to the policy quoted above, the goal is "that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively."  No consensus of the parties has been reached.  Assuming I'm a "major player" in the debate about the deletion of the text I added, I do not believe the view/fact I presented is "sympathetically" and definitely not "comprehensively" presented.  It has simply been erased ENTIRELY.  No compromise has been proposed or offered by those who have deleted the well sourced text other than to leave it deleted--that's not a compromise.  I offer this compromise:  I'm not at all opposed to someone with some alternative perspective attempting to incorporate it into the article, hopefully backing up that view with evidence, sources (if available), and good, high quality, concise and to the point writing.  That seems like a reasonable solution to me.  And of course, that would require that the deleted be restored.  Agreed? [copied to discussion page]--David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And now you know why we ask that the texts have sources. Remember that text that you complain that it wasn't deleted in spite of not being sourced? Well, it turns that it was wrong on a pair of accounts . It's no longer a Fortune 200 company, it has presence on 17 states and not 18 states, and it's not one of the largest builders, it's exactly the second one (at least as of 2008).


 * Anyways, you can have unsourced text on an article as soon as it's not challenged or as editors agree that it's obvious information that doesn't need sourcing, like saying that America is a continent or that ex-president George Bush senior is the father of current president George W. Bush, or stuff like that.


 * It depends on the topic. For example, you can see history articles that have whole unsorced paragraphs simply because editors interested on history already know that the information is correct and don't think of challenging it.


 * And on those cases you shouldn't remove the text directly as unsourced, or you will be told a lot of nasty things by other editors who know that the information is obvious to anyone knowing history. You should either make yourself the effort of sourcing the info, or explaining why you think that the information is incorrect or inaccurate (to satisfy the WP:BURDEN burden of proof requirement), or find sources that show the information to be incorrect. If you can't do any of that, you can add tags to request a citation. Tags usually remains for weeks, month or even years until someones sources them, depending of how many people edit the article, how controversial the tag is, the difficulty of sourcing the info, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is STILL AT-ISSUE Three Days have passed and the issue remains unresolved. If I don't hear back, I assume those who deleted the material regarding the San Francisco Board of Education have lost interest and/or do not want to negotiate in good faith. However, I don't know what the deadline for a response is and/or counter-proposal. If there is Wikipedia policy on deadlines regarding responses to disputes, please point me to the code.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

/*Post responses above this line, please*/

Regarding Lennar

 * By the way, I moved the discussion from this user's talk page to the article's talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! See if you can counsel the newbie editors on both sides.  They are welcome to participate on the article talk page, but if they have a COI, they should avoid editing the article as that would inevitably lead to trouble.  Jehochman Talk 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

regarding Ideogram
Thanks for resetting the ban , Jehochman. However, it doesn't seem to show on his block log. I'm not sure why. Is this a technical issue?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocks are one thing, bans are another. If his block expires and he starts editing, we can deal with it.  I'd actually like that because it would give us something to checkuser against in case he tries socking.  Right now we don't have any fresh edits to compare potential socks against. Further, if he happens to return and is constructive, we can get rid of the ban.  Bans are not punitive; they protect against disruption. Jehochman Talk 04:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the ban reset doesn't require a block. Under past circumstances, ban-evading sockpuppets are always blocked indefinitely and the puppet master's ban is reset (meaning block is restarted). For instance, "His excellency" [] who was banned by arbCom for 6 months repeatedly created Ban-evading socks. Everytime a sock was discovered, the ban was reset with a 6 month block starting from the date the particular sock was located. You warned him on his talkpage saying his ban is reset, but here we are telling me Ideogram can come back. Isn't this like rewarding him for circumventing his community-ban? If bans do not equate block, why did Chris block Ideogram for a year after the decision in CSN last August? How should we deal with him if he does edit with Ideogram? Do we block him on sight since he will be "violating" his non-binding ban? As for your concern for fresh log, User:66.234.217.151's contribution [] shows the connection between Ideogram and Slashem and should be recent enough to check.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved, as mentioned at User talk:Blnguyen. Jehochman Talk 12:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jehochman. I think you should block the IP address User:66.234.217.151 for 1 year as well to avoid potential sleeper socks.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't block IPs for so long normally. If socks appear, let me know, or you can go right to WP:SSP if I am unavailable. Jehochman Talk 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. An IP block for how long is justified in this case?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * None is required unless there is active socking, then it is up to the blocking admin to pick a number. I'd look at how long the user had been on that IP and block for about that same length of time. Jehochman Talk 11:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

All's well that ends well
Hello Jonathan. Things did turn out well in the end. Good work! I wonder whether the Wikiquette discussion on me could be deleted now or a comment added. It was due to my confusion of what A and P said (see what I added there) which apparently is now explained. Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. See, with patience, editors sooner or later show their true colors and the situation is resolved. Jehochman Talk 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Hopefully the problem will not recur, even after the unblock of User:Bharatveer. All this was quite unpleasant and tiring. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends, lurkers, and others
Could a few of you please watchlist WP:FPC. There is a bit of disruption going on there. Just pop in once and a while to help if you can. Thank you! Jehochman Talk 02:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you share some details with us? I don't know what I'm looking for. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I received a report of irregularities, and a request for more eyes on the page. Jehochman Talk 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Thread in which you are involved
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Enjoy.  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  05:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No further input is required from me. I have already explained the reasons, but the IP is obviously intent on disruption.  I trust that other administrators will deal with it. Jehochman Talk 05:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I suspect that 216.80.119.92 is Lakinekaki, because
 * Except for one earlier edit, it became active less than two hours after Lakinekaki's last edit, in which he said he would edit Wikipedia anonymously.
 * Most of its edits so far are in two afd's where Lakinekaki had been heavily involved, and in both it seems to have the same point of view as Lakinekaki.
 * It seems to geolocate to Chicago, where Lakinekaki says he is.


 * As for the SA connection, SA took Lakinekaki's recently deleted article Process equation to afd, and clashed with him at Solar cycle.


 * In all fairness to 216.80.119.92, it didn't double vote, and this looks to me like a case of just not signing in.Cardamon (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IP
Hi, I saw that you warned the above IP for attacking ScienceApologist. I thought I should make you aware that this is, who has retired his main account in order to "edit anonymously". He appears to have a vendetta against several editors, such as Arthur Rubin and SA. He seems to be mainly disruptive now. (CoI: He doesn't seem to like me either, though not as much) Verbal   chat  08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I should have read your talk page. I see you are aware. Apologies. Please delete this. Verbal   chat  08:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He doesn't seem to like me either, though not as much


 * Would you like it to be as much? ;-)
 * 67.184.176.224 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe these edits and their summaries have something to do with liking you seem to use vandalism templates quite easily and with interesting explanations.
 * 67.184.176.224 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes and socks
Hi, J, and long time no see. I'm posting because the "Martinez & Caldwell" sockpuppets and hoax article situation (see also User talk:Athaenara*) is getting repetitious and monotonous. The sockpuppet reports (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and the blocks which have been issued have not stopped new socks from registering and engaging in precisely the same actions as before. Do you know what humongous clue about an effective approach I seem to have missed? — Athaenara ✉  01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * *  [Current link: User talk:Athaenara/Archive 00. — Athaenara ✉  19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ] 
 * * '' (Now preserved at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard.) A. 11:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you too! Go to RFCU in the IP check section.  Explain the problem and request a checkuser to identify and block the underlying IPs.A rangeblock might be useful.  Jehochman Talk 01:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I did so (diff) and hope I didn't do it totally wrong. — Athaenara  ✉  02:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a note to make sure they do what is needed. Patience now, and soon this will be resolved. Jehochman Talk 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And so it is. Jehochman Talk 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, J—looks like I came to the right place for advice! It's too soon to know whether the campaign has been slowed down (see chronology) but Alison's one-month blocks of three IPs may have short-circuited it for a bit.  — Athaenara  ✉  22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Diversification
Jehochman, taking a look at your contribs over the last few days,, it appears that nearly all you've been doing, is hovering over my RfC and reacting to everything. As I'm sure you know, you have already been cautioned for harassment on multiple occasions. Some of your comments at the RfC have also been, shall we say, not as truthful as they could have been. So, could you perhaps try to find something else to do on Wikipedia, that isn't related to me? Thanks, Elonka 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, I fail to see how this helps anyone, including you and Jehochman. It's manifestly unhelpful and reactionary. Consider deleting it and my comment along with it and calling the whole thing a wash. Antelan  15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to examine his contribs for yourself. --Elonka 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like to work on one problem at a time. If you review my last 5,000 - 10,000 contributions you will notice that this is my habit.  In any case, the subject of an RFC does not get to decide who can comment or how much.  If my comments were excessive, or otherwise improper, uninvolved editors would have noticed and said something to me.  Since I finally posted my comments this morning (it took a while to give things proper consideration), I have very little else to say.  Hopefully that news will make you happy.  Thank you for visiting my talk page.  Jehochman Talk 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, please reconsider initiating recall on Elonka. I know that others have already spoken to you about your obsessive and inappropriate behaviour towards Elonka and they have discussed starting an RfC against you because of it and I'm afraid that having been watching your behaviour myself prior to and during this RfC I am increasingly feeling that an RfC against you is appropriate. I feel your negative feelings towards Elonka are such that they are preventing you from seeing straight with regard to any issue involving her. If a recall must be initiated, so be it, but I feel you should not be party to it and I would advise Elonka not to entertain any recall initiated by you or to which you are a signatory for the simple fact that you appear disturbingly obsessed with her. I see that she came here to indicate that she was uncomfortable with you intensely focusing your attention on her such that nearly 100% of your edits in recent days are in relation to her and your response is to request her recall! I think if you had a reasonable grip on yourself you would realise how profoundly inappropriate this is. Please, I do not want to be in the position of being the first (?) person to file an RfC against someone they nominated for RfA but if you do not reconsider your own approach here and then back off and leave it to others then I will be offering to join Will in initiating an RfC on yourself. Additionally, during your own RfA when you were asked if you would be open to recall. You responded: "I have intended to do so because many of the admins I respect are already members of that list. There's nothing to lose and a lot to gain. - Jehochman Talk 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)". Yet I just now noticed that you are no longer listed in the recall category. Given that I put my reputation on the line in nominating you, I would like to ask you to consider honoring your own promise to be open to recall. Sarah 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After the Durova recall fiasco, I opted out of that category, and replaced it with this: User:Jehochman/Dispute resolution. (You are named on that page, though in the current matter, I'd suggest any disputant to choose one of the others as a mediator.)  I placed my reputation on the line by supporting Elonka twice.  She subsequently made unfounded accusations against me, and I have become alarmed at the way she has been treating other editors.  I feel responsible since I supported her (the same way you feel responsible for having supported me).  Many editors are concerned about Elonka.  Some have emailed me in confidence because they are too intimidated to speak out themselves.  It is not my way to be intimidated by threats, and I am very, very interested in protecting people who feel oppressed.  In addition to what you see from Elonka above, I have received threats of RFC from another party. I welcome any scrutiny of my editing or administrating.  Jehochman Talk 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. So you've "opted out" of what you pledged in your RFA but you're holding Elonka to what she said in hers without even asking what her current recall criteria might be, if she may have revised it or not? Double standard much? Please withdraw from this dispute. Supporting someone's RFA does not give you the right to obsessively harass them. FYI also, I have already advised Elonka that I think your behaviour towards her has reached the level that she should notify ArbCom and perhaps even Jimmy. If you cannot stand down after being explicitly asked to do so by WJBScribe, myself and others like Sceptre commenting about your behaviour then I think there is a serious problem here and it is going to look very bad for you. If "Many editors are concerned about Elonka", then many unobsessed editors are able to manage the dispute and any recall. Sarah 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do contact Jimmy, or anyone else, or start a request for arbitration or request for comment or sign the start a recall petition below. (I have pledged to resign if the community has lost confidence in my use of administrative tools.) I welcome any sort of scrutiny or criticism. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's up to Elonka, not me, but one things for certain your behaviour towards her is profoundly inappropriate and you've now been told that in no uncertain terms by multiple people. Please remove your name from the recall request and allow someone else to do it. Sarah 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have struck my signature, out of respect for you, even though I strongly disagree with your assessment. If you had such concerns, I wish you would have shared them with me previously.  In any case, I would like to have nothing further to do with this controversy.  I find it extremely unpleasant to be badgered so for expressing my opinions.  Jehochman Talk 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jonathan, I do appreciate that very much. Sarah 00:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to feel like a grammophone record the way I keep wanting to use the word "outrageous" about Elonka's actions, but her attack on Jehochman above, about "multiple" cautions for harassment and untruthfulness is the worst I've seen yet. Elonka, do you seriously not know about evidence ? Examples ? Diffs? You simply don't get to say stuff like that without proof. It's not "uncivil bla bla"; it's vicious. Now either go find some diffs for those accusations or withdraw them. Those are your options. This is a warning. I have also posted it on Elonka's page.  Bishonen | talk 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
 * If I may intrude for a second: I fear this conversation is beginning to pan out very similar to the heated discussions that have been held between Elonka + Jehochman, and yet is going nowhere. I strongly recommend that both Elonka and Jonathan disengage from one another: insofar as contact between the two of you continues to exist, disruption is going to continue. Elonka, I don't think issuing cautions to Jehochman is wise -- if his behaviour is improper, an uninvolved editor or administrator will pull him up. Conversely, Jonathan: I appreciate that you feel that Elonka is intimidating other editors, but I don't think that devoting your time on-Wiki to what seems to be a 'campaign' to "stop the injustices" is wise... If Elonka is behaving poorly, she will be held to task for it by the wider community. You are both excellent editors, and your contributions and actions are often amongst the best I've seen (Elonka, your work on the WG for ethnic warring has been outstanding; Jehochman, your contrib's and opinions at various noticeboards and threads [notably, RfAr] have always been very reflective and totally on-the-button), but this feud really is detracting from all that. I understand that both of you, Jonathan and Elonka, feel strongly that the other's conduct is flawed, and that action needs to be taken; however, it is essential that this is noted: you'll just fan the flames. Leave it to uninvolved to carry out checks and scrutiny on the other's conduct. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- For the sake of drama minimization, I will "roll" out of this conflict and find something else to work on. It has obviously become a personal conflict and my participation is counterproductive. Jehochman Talk 22:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An extremely wise choice, Jonathan. Sense is beginning to be restored. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review
Please review SA's actions at Atropa belladonna and its talk page, not just today but back in the events that led to the two prior protections of the article (the second ended today). I think it is time to give him a topic ban from that page. GRBerry 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited that page to implement a compromise that was liked by both sides. If you want to topic ban SA, I will support it.  His editing there is not helpful. (My quick response is due to the fact that I remember previous incidents, and the edits today are clearly against consensus and policy.) Jehochman Talk 20:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe there would be less drama if another admin did it than if I did. But since you edited that section previously, I agree you shouldn't do it.  Sigh.  GRBerry 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After a few months administrating in a particular venue, I am often tempted to edit the article myself. Then I need to switch administrative focus to a different area.  This is quite healthy. If you implement the ban, you can cite the diff above where I approve of it. That may provide some drama suppression. Jehochman Talk 20:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking further at the subsequent edit history, they've shifted from edit warring to attempting to discuss the issue. I'm going to sit on this for a while.  Incidentally, I notice MastCell appears to be close to giving up, which would be a significant loss.  GRBerry 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. He needs more support. Jehochman Talk 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The WG and admin experimentation
Jehochman -- Greetings, I hope you don't mind my asking you a question here rather than at the RFC. (If need be, the thread can be relocated.) From what I understand, Elonka said some time ago that she would experiment by trying to work on some Isr-Pal disputes. Given my own involvement with the I-P arena, I gathered that she was doing so in line with the discretionary sanctions mandate and the overall thrust of the ArbCom ruling for that arena. However, I gather that you are concerned or asserting that she is defending her experimentation as if it were authorized by the Working Group (WG). I'm sure you're pretty busy, but I am curious about your basis for this concern about the WG. Since I am skeptical about the relevance of the WG here, is there any chance you could refer me to a page where she claimed to be authorized by the WG? Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a conversation with her on her talk page. Listen, I have been subjected to intense pressure not to comment further on Elonka.  This was why I initiated the recall -- because I felt that the RFC was being manipulated by character assassination and intimidation against her critics.  I'd really like to not be involved further. Forgive me for not looking up all the diffs. Jehochman Talk 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Jehochman, that's fair enough. Just msg my Talk if you happen to change your mind. Be well. HG | Talk 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Hey Jehochman, cheer up, and don't worry, I'm not a grudge-bearer or anything like that. :) I've responded on my talk page. Best wishes. Acalamari 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All the best
with everything. Cheers. Verbal  chat  21:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

re recall criteria
Jehochman, all I am saying it would have been wise to have taken more care when proposing for a recall. You obviously knew about her latter post, and it would have been helpful to note that in your request. That would have prevented a lot of the confusion. Anyway, whats done is done on that front. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to stay off that page.  Could we move that discussion here, perhaps, and you can link to it?  No, I did not recognize that there were two slightly different posts (though I may have linked to both of them on different occasions), because I am the type of person who lives by the spirit of my promises, not by the letter. People are concerned about Elonka's administrative actions, not her actions as an ordinary editor.  That is clear.  Sorry if I seem testy, but this ordeal has been very hard to stomach.  I do not like putting another human being through such stress.   Jehochman Talk 00:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries; that page is too busy anyway. For context, I am neutral on the recall, have pointed out that you were aware of the more clear recall criteria, and would like those endorsing it to be clear about what administrative actions concern each endorsee.  Im not pleased that you have put her through this either, but the main issue I have with your actions was that you didnt articulate what administrative actions where problematic, and didnt frame the recall around the criteria you knew about.  Consequently others have endorsed it based on regrettable comments which we all make from time to time when the shit hits the fan. While I think an RFC would be preferable, the current one had/has issues, so I feel that we need a clear indication, from six people who dont merely hold a grudge over some regrettable comment, that they see recall as the solution to particular admin actions/behaviour.  I am asking people to jump through hoops a little, but I hope it is obvious that six clear statements, or the absence of such, will give us a clear direction to take moving forward. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I support what you are doing. It is better to make things clear!  Jehochman Talk 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

bar code reader
Question, Once I receive the Intermec reader, and start my conducting the physical inventory at Building X, will I have the capability to create and print the barcode label there at the inventory site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.65.147.107 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you chose me to ask this question, but I'll try to help since I know a little about this. The scanner just reads. Typically, if you want to print a barcode label, you need a barcode printer, some software, labels, and a computer. If you barcode printing or barcode software or physical inventory, there should be numerous companies offering solutions. Jehochman Talk 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to mentorship
Just let me know. Cheerio! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like you are trying to plug every leak with your thumbs, but you don't have enough to go around. A better approach would be to rebuild the dike one section at a time so it stops leaking.  What I suggest is that we identify a high importance article that has been overrun with fringe views and original research, then clean it up to good article or even featured article standards.  I have found that quality certification helps prevent backsliding, by establishing a consensus for what the article should contain, and by bringing in lots of eyes, especially those of quality-conscious editors.  I think I can find a mentor who could help you with this endeavor.  However, I'd like you to agree to disengage from the multiple disputes you are involved in (take them off your watchlist), and focus on a small number of "renovation project" articles.  The mentor that I could find for you would help deal with any disruptive editors.  Jehochman Talk 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of experience cleaning up articles to good and featured status. However, I have absolutely no desire to do this for articles outside of my discipline. I've run-off the vast majority of astronomy pseudoscience POV-pushers, so I'm not sure what else you are wanting. The closest I can think of it cold fusion which has been plagued by editors with very particular agendas and administrators in great need of WP:CLUE, but there's no way I would be able to devote myself full-bore to just that article as I find dealing with the likes of the characters that hang out there to be overwhelmingly aggravating and dull for anything more than a week. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request
Just so you know, 208.54.94.111 is requesting an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I left a note there. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep.
I agree with the "officialness" of the warning, I'll reiterate I called it "appropriate". Fritzpoll posted on my talkpage, I'd been watching this issue unfold/develop over the weekend and was tangentially involved. While you were (presumably) typing up your edit there, I was compiling a list of the contentious areas that the user in question has decided to "do battle", and was shocked at how many divisive issues he is involved in in just the past week. I went to his talkpage to post my post, and was surprised (and refreshed) to see someone already there. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate
It wouldn't take too much digging to show that I am a UK resident, and that the IP accused is also from the UK. Does this shift the balance of evidence in Abd's favour for a CU? Why am I asking this? Because if it is to be done, then t'were well it were done quickly Fritzpoll (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I have worked on enough RFCU cases to be familiar with their standards.  There is no evidence to connnect you; no check can be run.  Abd is bluffing and trying to get you upset.  Just ignore any further provocations.  You should see some of the things that people have said about me! Jehochman Talk 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe - cool, just throwing it out there. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SA
I'm not sure this is a job for the mentor since the damage is already done. I am probably more concerned than MartinPhi is but I hate to see an editor come back to this. This kind of behaviour wears down editors. Martin left feeling discouraged, and despite the encouragement of several editors who felt he had a lot to offer. He has finally returned. This kind of behaviour undermines Wikipedia civility and collaborative editing at a subtle level call it what you will on the surface. Thanks and best wishes.(olive (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Damage done can best be resolved by offering assistance to repair the problem. Additionally, you can request more "eyes" in the form of uninvolved parties.  We don't sanction editors to compensate for past errors.  We do sometimes use sanctions to deter or prevent future problems.  Since one (and possibly a second) mentor have been engaged, I think that remedy should be utilized first, before we move on to the next possibility.  Jehochman Talk 02:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that we don't sanction as punishment. I also feel concern about this kind of situation. I have no desire to punish anyone. At the same time, I have no desire to see an editor face unfair situations and environments in attempts to edit. However, The mentor will know best what to do, and I'll leave my concerns in his hands. Many thanks for your comments.(olive (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)_

Java
Hey,

I'm trying to put a javascript menu on another wiki.... any idea who I could ask about the mechanics of that? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

a note
I sent you a personal email about a situation that I find troubling. I hope you understand and I hope you don't take offense from me emailing you. I welcome any communication or discussion. My feelings and thoughts are very scattered, so please take that into consideration before reading. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck
It looks like you're the new tar baby, Jehochman. ;) Now you're also harrassing Abd. S.  D. Jameson 04:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When stepping in between a troll and a target, I often get attacked. It comes with the job. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question:
I have voluntarily given you my identity and IP address on a popular WP discussion site of which you are a member. If you need further information, you may contact me there. (As a reference, it was the place in which we were discussing who to invite to the party...) Gretab (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will use that information if necessary. Jehochman Talk 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GlobalCollect page
I am curious to know why you speed deleted the page I wrote regarding GlobalCollect without any prior warning as to what was unacceptable in the article. My goal was to create a sterile company profile (similar to the pages of CyberSource, Basic Research, Aveda, and a myriad of other companies on Wikipedia), not blatantly advertise for this particular company. Furthermore, you protected the page so I could not even rework the content to meet the Wikipedia standards. Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.195.98 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the company appears to be completely non-notable, and the article appeared to be blatant advertising. Since this article was deleted once before, and nothing seems to have changed since then, I have protected it to prevent circular debates over the same thing.  If you like, register an account, read Business' FAQ, and then create an article in your userspace.  If you have any connection to the company, best practice would be to disclose this.  You can edit the page User:YourUsername/GlobalCollect (replace YourUsername with your real username).  Feel free to ask me or another administrator to review the article and see whether it complies with policy well-enough to be moved into the encyclopedia.  I hope this advice helps. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd talk page
Abd has specifically asked you not to post on their talk page, and (like any other user) is entitled to remove comments from their own talk page. Why not just stop baiting? DuncanHill (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Abd has followed me around and disrupted my conversations. I left him a warning about that, and replied to a question from another administrator. If Abd does not interfere with me, I have no intention of going near his talk page.  I disagree with your assessment that I am baiting him.  How exactly do I warn off a user who is disrupting my conversations without leaving a note on their talk page? Per this essay I started, I am going to back off, but I am still free to respond to any criticism directed at me. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Contact me regarding "plan of action" for ScienceApologist mentorship
(See: ) We need to get in touch to organise a 'plan of action' from here on in, regarding guiding ScienceApologist back onto the right path. I am aware that you had a proposal to focus S.A.'s contrib's on a few, select articles, with a view to bringing them up to featured status. If you wish to endure with that (it certainly seems like a good plan to me), we'll need to co-ordinate how we're going to enforce it, which articles to pick, how far we should ask S.A. to restrict himself from other articles (compile a "blacklist" of articles he should stay well away from?), and so on.

I've also asked S.A. and Fritzpoll (the other mentor) to contact me. Would email be an okay forum by which to discuss things (it would probably be easiest -- could CC everybody into the one thread)?

<font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">Anthøny 22:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, email me. I should be able to respond fairly promptly.  We might start by asking SA to make a list of articles he'd like to edit, and we can supplement that, and maybe strike those which seem too trouble-prone, and then ask him if he would agree. Jehochman Talk 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Medicine is not even a good article yet. That would be a good place to start. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just waiting on Fritzpoll returning to editing (he's away over the weekend). Regards, <font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">Anthøny 16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Block just now
FYI, if it helps. rootology ( T ) 18:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comment. I wasn't aware of that. PHG (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogus Sockpuppet
No. I really did suspect that those three were sockpuppets - read my later contributions.

I have been met with resistance on the Solar System pages, then when I show analytical thinking, then logical conclusions: I'm met with silence. -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

answer
User:Hillary Rodham Clinton constituent. Coren wrongly blocked this citing a name of a person or organization. There is no such person as the constituent family. There is no such organisation either. Coren didn't even ask me to change the name. Why don't you block him for 24 hours for violating Wikipedia rules? The last (first) time I mentioned it, another Nazi admin blocked me because they said I shouldn't complain. The trouble with admin is they have no accountability. If they violate the rules, they must be subject to punishment. I don't seek a harsh punishment. Maybe a series of points. Once they exceed a certain number of points, then punishment is given. HRCC (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is getting aggressive. What is your point? HRCC is the only account I use. Period. Having another account is permitted even though I don't. HRCC (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:KETTLE. Check the tone of your above post, which I explain further on your talk page.  If I weren't feeling so mellow, I'd have blocked you indefinitely about 20 minutes ago. I am optimistic that you'll agree with my advice and avoid further problems. Jehochman Talk 21:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The correct response would be for Coren to cite the policy and ask for a name change. If Coren did what he did, the next best thing would be to say he's sorry but that there was enough ambiguity (AGF for him) in the rules and that he's sorry that the autoblock prevented creating a new name.


 * Coren disabled autoblock but he probably didn't know that if you log into a blocked account, even if account creation is disabled, you cannot edit with the new account for 24 hours. If so, he should have been a nice admin and say so.  This kind of courtesy makes Wikipedia user friendly but the rudeness of admin makes Wikipedia seem like a lawless website of anonymous admin.


 * Per your advice, I will check my tone. Please also check your tone.  As soon as you don't like something, you start hinting sockpuppet.  As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested the point system so that shows I have a unique idea.


 * You cite being mellow at the moment for not blocking. This is good and bad.  The good is that you have not blocked.  The bad is that you display the same behavior as that other admin.  If one doesn't toe the Wikipedia party line (Wikipedia is great, dear comrade), they will block you for "trolling".  You almost said that you also block people when you are mad.  That's not good.  You should be more mellow, as you put it.

HRCC (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

history only deletion
Please put back Andrew Young. As a compromise, you can do a "history only" replacement. That way, one can look at the history and see the old version.

The man has been cited in over 40 articles that I counted before I stopped counting. Major news sources have cited him. This would make speedy deletion inappropriate.

If you do a history only deletion, they you still win. You get to wipe out the article yet it remains there for others to improve on it.

I think the title needs a little changing but that can be done later.

I also think that you have a conflict of interest. Some harsh words were exchanged which was immediately followed by speedy deletion of an article that I worked on. As an experienced administrator, you can behave better than that. Wikipedia is not a third world military dictatorship. HRCC (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll happily provide a copy of the article to you so you can merge it into an appropriate existing article. Just that we don't make a stand alone article about a person for one event in their life.  I am not in any sort of conflict with you.  I've given you feedback, critical perhaps, but we are not arguing over article content. I am encouraged that you are talking to me and at least willing to hear what I have to say. Jehochman Talk 22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Young was a campaign official for U.S. presidential candidate, John Edwards, who stated that he is the father to a child with a woman who had an affair with Edwards.

Admin Coaching?
Hi. I'm interested in having an admin coach, and I saw you had an opening. What is your method for coaching your students? Would you be interested in coaching me? Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to my talk page. I'd be happy to help you.  I think you have been here less than six months and have less than a thousand edits, yes?  As a practical matter, it would be difficult to pass RFA before you have more experience. I'd like you to pass with a high percentage, not just squeak through.  Could you begin by choosing an important article, and bring it through good article or featured article candidacy?  I've had my eye on medicine, but you could choose another topic if something else interests you more.  I recommend choosing a serious academic subject, rather than pop culture for the purpose of this exercise.  When you run into difficulties, you can ask me for advice. Jehochman Talk 20:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am currently involved in improving Toy Story, the first entirely CG film, to FA-status. I know it's not a serious academic subject, but it is a great milestone in film, and it's what I'm working on right now.  I'll tell you when I nominate it to GAC.  I'm keeping an eye out for a more serious one to improve.  I think I might work on Sarracenia...
 * Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Fox
Dear talk page lurkers, Vanessa Fox asked me if we could clean up her article. It needs copy editing, and I will post requested factual corrections and sources to the article talk page as soon as she emails them to me. I feel that subjects of our articles should have their concerns heard and acted on when reasonable. Would anyone like to help with this? Jehochman Talk 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Coach
Yeah. I am looking for a coach. I failed two RfAs and was just awarded that thing. (Please, if you are not satanic, and don't know latin, do NOT translate that. lol) If you'll be my coach, I'd be your student. Undeath (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be glad to help you. I have put together this page User talk:Jehochman/Coaching.  Take a look and leave comments there.  You can just get started, and then after you've worked on some stuff, ask me to review.  Also feel free to ask for help if you run into something that needs administrative attention. Jehochman Talk 03:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How's this? (It's latin for dead warrior) Mortuus bellator (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Signature can be whatever you like, but it would be best if your username matched the signature. This reduces confusion and is especially important for an administrator, in my opinion.  You can change your username to match the signature, if you like. Jehochman Talk 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll go with this. The Undead Warrior (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you register User:The Undead warrior as a doppleganger account and link it to your main account? That will help people who naively copy your signature into the search box and go looking for you. Jehochman Talk 04:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I never have like doppleganger accounts. I'll just make this my sig for now. Should ease any confusion. And yes, I do have email. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Such little things can improve people's first reactions.  You've done a lot of vandal fighting.  That's good.  Now we need to work on some of the more subtle skills.  Take a look at my coaching page (linked somewhere above) and see where you'd like to start first. Jehochman Talk 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to do a DYK, but I don't know the process. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the easiest possible ways to get a DYK is to take a large, bloated article, and break out daughter articles using summary style. I ripped a huge chunk of content out of gamma ray burst to create gamma ray burst progenitors and was awared a DYK without even knowing how it happened.  There's a bot that looks for new articles and lists them as DYK candidates.  You can of course follow the procedure at WP:DYK to nominate any article you have created.  Check the criteria before you start.  My userpage lists the few that I have done, which may serve as examples. Jehochman Talk 05:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to say the award I gave Undead was sort of camp in it's horrorness. It doesn't imply any sort of wrongness.  Nor is it technically a Flaming Hellpot award, I just liked the pic.  However, he did earn the award for his IMHO strong sticking his neck out on behalf of what he considered right, I believe he'll be an excellent candidate for admin coaching. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Would The Mandrake (band) contain a DYK? Undead Warrior (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly, if you expand it substantially over a couple days and quickly submit. Check the criteria at WP:DYK for expanding stub articles.  You'd should links to the article before and after your expansion. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles." You'd need to expand that to more than 20 kb, and write a good "hook".  I am not sure if you can find enough sources to write that much.  In this case the article started at 4k, so expanding it 5x is tougher. If you do submit this one, leave me a diff and I'll check it out and provide guidance. Otherwise, feel free to try something else. Jehochman Talk 18:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeal
Hi Jehochman, I have filed a request for appeal at Requests for arbitration. I'll be looking forward to your support. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I was on the verge of changing that, but was not bold enough, and reckoned I'd probably just have WP:CENSOR thrown back at me. Your edit summary is perfect, and I reckon I'll probably use that at some time or another :). <font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Joe Biden
This is an actual quote by Joe Biden in response to moderator Wolf Blitzer at the democratic presidential debate 2007-11-16. The full transcript is cited in the previous paragraph. Is there more to this story? — CharlotteWebb 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR notification
Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

email
Hi Jehochman, I'm not nagging or anything, I just wanted to check if you got the email I sent you? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did, thank you. It is my policy to conduct business on wiki for routine matters.  I understand that you had concerns about editing by a third party.  Feel free to address those concerns directly, sensitively and in a constructive manner.  Editors here should feel comfortable to giving, and receiving, thoughtful feedback. Jehochman Talk 22:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel it was something I could say publicly myself, the reason being that anyone could read it and also I consider the person concerned a wikifriend, plus you are probably better at handling these things. But perhaps you have taken a look at what I mentioned, or might bear what I said in mind anyway.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly will! Jehochman Talk 01:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I took your advice and went for it.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 01:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ears burning?
I have dropped your name at Requests for arbitration. Jehochman Talk 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that all 27 people who signed the recall petition (a lot more than 6!) were acting in bad faith? Your point is not clear.    Jehochman Talk 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, just that it is not equitable to seek to enforce the letter of a promise (if offers for recall can be considered promises at all) in circumstances where it is contrary to the spirit or the substance of the promise. It's an analogy to the legal world that I think is apt here: specific performance is an equitable remedy, and someone seeking equity must do equity.
 * Essentially I'm saying (without necessarily criticising anyone) that I consider this wikilawyering (and yes, I appreciate the irony of drawing legal analogies to say so!). --bainer (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Too much thinking for my taste, but thank you for the reply. The plain English of the pledge was clear enough.  If circumstances had changed, it would have been good to post some sort of notice promptly, and change the recall criteria explicitly, rather than waiting for events to unfold.  I see no reason to push the matter further.  Observers will draw their own conclusions. (Note: I did attend law school, and am familiar with the concepts.) Jehochman Talk 01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom entry: ?
Purely uninvolved user here who saw your post on User:Bishonen's page because he's on my watchlist for some reason. I just read your arbcom submission, and... did you link to the correct diffs there? is most definitely not instigation for the desysopping of ChrisO, is quite civil, and Elonka was even careful to be transparent in his (her?) actions by crossposting the statement so ChrisO could see it.

Basically, and not to butt in on something that isn't my business, but you seem to be seriously jumping at shadows here. I would personally suggest you withdraw that arbcom request before it becomes an embarrassment to all involved. --erachima talk 08:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka failed to disclose her past disputes with ChrisO, and she outlined the process for getting his sysop bit removed. If you dislike my request, please file a comment at WP:RFAR and state your reasons. At Wikipedia everything is your business.  Feel free to butt in wherever you like if you can add to the discussion constructively.  Jehochman Talk 08:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia dispute resolution process is a matter of public record, Jehochman. I would expect any rational editor to give that same reply if they saw a new user attempting to make a complaint in the wrong venue, no matter what history they had with the user whose actions were being questioned.
 * But whatever, carry on as you wish. I still think this is either a giant misunderstanding or you're being very, very silly. --erachima talk 09:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathan. I have to agree with erachima here. Elonka wrote that the desysop request was stale and that there are less draconian routes for dealing with conflicts over templates. Might you possibly have slightly misread what Elonka wrote? It might be worth reading Morven's comments on Bishonen's talk page and NYB's carefully weighed final comments on the previous RFAR: they seem to acknowledge problems in dealing with good editors of long-standing, which, if shown to be unresolved, would probably result in the acceptance of a future RFAR. I fear that you might have unwittingly jumped the gun here. Just my 0,01 € worth :-) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I have amended my request. The issue of Elonka and the IP reveals to me a potential for an ongoing feud. Of course Elonka is free to make those comments, as I am free to request arbitration in hopes of quelling the feud, thus preventing disruption. Jehochman Talk 11:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you or someone can explain why arb administrators are voting already whether to accept or not before you finish presenting what's on your mind or allow others to make comment. I find it confusing to see a vote for denial before things are even finished to explain what the problems might be, if any.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you read what they said in their posts, it's because they think the request is frivolous. --erachima talk 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is confusing. It seems like the emerging consensus is that this is a personal conflict and that we should just avoid each other. See WP:SNOW. When the resut is obvious, we can skip steps.  Meanwhile, watch the arbcom elections carefully and be sure to vote for good candidates.  I like Newyorkbrad's habit of not voting until all parties have had a chance to comment. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. I've been following this whole thing for a while myself now and I just don't get why people make any judgements before allowing everything to come out to see if there is a problem.  Right now I am not saying in this last ARB that there is or isn't a problem but I did want to see what everyone wanted to say in full before I made an educated decision.  I thought I saw that Jehochman had more to say then what is there but now it seems he shouldn't continue with the other difs because almost everyone has decided it is frivolous, well how do the ones who voted know without allowing for everyone to say their piece first?  Erachima, I understand what you are saying but what I read was there was more information to be provided.  Well personally I think the whole situation needs to be heard because there is a lot of unsaid and bad feelings going on with a lot of people.  Just look at Elonka's talk page.  Since the comments made at Jimbo Wales talk page I believe three more people have asked her to step down.  Something is definitely wrong when so many people are commenting on this and getting no way to find some answers by anyone.  I myself endorsed her to stand for a new RFA and I don't have any beefs with anyone here on Wikipedia that I am aware of.  I feel that the community should be listened to and right now I also feel like more than once I have been lumped in as being some kind of bad character or something because I feel a new RFA is the right thing to do.  I don't know maybe I am wrong about this but I feel the community in the whole needs some kind answers at least on how to solve this situation already.  Right now, IMHO I think a lot are just sweeping things under the rug and hoping for it all to go away, and it seems it will, this is sad I'm sorry to say.  Sorry for this little rant, it's not like me but I feel very confused about this right now and feel that there is no reason to do any of these policy avenues since unless you are a unknown person it's not going to the community for complete comments.  Maybe I am wrong about this but maybe Wikipedia isn't what I thought it was.  Oh and I too like the way NYB handles himself and was very thrilled to see his return.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for de-admin...
I saw that you've suggested some sort of community process for removing a user's admin rights. What do you think of WP:DESYSOP? (probably needs a re-title, or move, or something... but I find it hard to argue with the concept that present a clear consensus for a de-sysop, it shouldn't be actioned.... thoughts most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited your proposal, mercilessly. Thank you very much for starting this.  Feel free to "edit war" with me over my changes.  :-)  It may also help to announce this in places where editors with a high clue quotient tend to hang out.  Jehochman Talk 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * High clue quotient? How lovely, where are those places? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Sorry, if you don't know, I can't tell you. Jehochman Talk 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * El Dorado? Utopia? New Atlantis? Hmm... I know, Herland, right? Bishonen | talk 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Shangri La. <-click-to-giggle Jehochman Talk 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone for a sort of 'multi idea' approach now - and you probably noticed that I mentioned this at the village pump.... I wouldn't be surprised if it gets noticed appropriately fairly soon... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fat Cigar as a puppet
User:Jayvdb has filed a complaint (after the Pmanderson aka Sept. complaint) against me because I pointed out that User:Fat Cigar is a meatpuppet account. He is portraying that my stating that is uncivil and etc. and hopes to get me banned over it. Considering that you were the person I saw who labeled Fat Cigar as a puppet and can point out that he/she is, in fact, an account apparently created by someone who pre-existing knowledge about Wikilawyering to support a single purpose, it might be helpful if you could post a comment in that section explaining it. Also, if there is some official designation of puppetry, etc., if you could point to that, or get it declared, etc., that'd be helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See Requests for checkuser/Case/Jagz. Best to drop the matter at this time. If the new user behaves badly, we can deal with them on their own account. Jehochman Talk 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, please undo your pre-emptive closure of this WP:AE thread. As you well know, it is appropriate for Arbitration enforcement to take action to achieve long term preventative action - that doesnt make it punitive .  Plenty of time has been given for DreamGuy to apologise, or produce diffs, and the reluctance to do either is why action on this has been delayed.  You are involved in this matter, so it is inappropriate for you to close it.  If you cant know your own limits, or recognise when you have stepped over them, that reflects very poorly on your other efforts which are increasingly losing focus on content.  It is unhealthy. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert my closure if you want to discuss the matter further. If you want to make a case for deterrence, be my guest, but I personally have tried that with DreamGuy before, and it was a spectacular failure.  I also don't appreciate you talking down to me and trying to "win" a minor difference of opinion by knocking me out of the discussion. Jehochman Talk 07:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to know why I haven't been doing much content lately, my citation tool, WPCITE, still isn't working in Firefox 3. It's rather depressing to type out citations by hand after having grown used to automation.  My programmers are working on a new version which I hope will be ready soon. Jehochman Talk 07:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. I said nothing to knock you out of the discussion; I was just very unpleased with you thinking you could and should close that discussion.  If anything, you knocked me out of the discussion by your action. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Noticeboard archive tags are just somebody saying, "this seems finished". Feel free to revert them any time I have closed a discussion you would like to continue. Jehochman Talk 13:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Response requested re warning to Abd
Jehochman, I'd appreciate it if, before I solicit broader participation in my userspace RfC, you would look at my description of your warning that led to my block. As you know, I considered your warning improper; however, in the RfC page given, I specifically examine it and provide the context, and will be soliciting broader examination of this if you and I cannot find consensus on it. Please comment, should you choose to do so, on User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, with respect to the questions asked there, and my responses to them, or otherwise as you see fit. If you could agree that the warning was in error, this would resolve the matter as far as your involvement is concerned, likewise if we can agree that it was proper. This request is an attempt to resolve a dispute without escalation, per WP:DR. I look forward to your response. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Literally NOBODY has got involved in this - he's now trawling around try to get anyone with a good rep (and highly visible administrators as yourself) to get involved, so he can use it as a spur for others to do so. Don't rubberstamp this sham. Yes you were involved in this but you've done your bit and I'd leave it at that. --87.113.10.208 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, Fredrick day, as usual, with his helpful advice. It's not true that nobody has gotten involved, a number of users specifically gave me permission, early on, to notify them re the RfC, and I haven't done that yet, nor have I done any general announcement, I'm attempting to make this minimally disruptive. This contact, Jehochman, is a necessity for me, as I assume you know, not for you. The RfC is at its first stage in examining the block, and this much is true: Nobody has yet commented except for Fredrick day, and that was over the process, not the actual RfC. What I'd recommend, Jehochman, is that you read the Talk page referenced above, and look at the evidence (as relates to the warning you gave me, not necessarily what came later). (The user page is just a list of the questions at this point, it will be like summary minutes of the RfC when it's closed.) Presently, it is only about the single edit I made to my Talk page, the one that you warned me about, and your warning. The questions consider whether or not the warning was based on an accurate assessment of the situation. Since you can now examine the issues at leisure, you might possibly see it differently. You now have an opportunity to convince me that I did, indeed, do what you claimed, or, to the contrary, to acknowledge that I did not, and thus, presumably, to apologize. It's just about the warning, not the block, at this point. Your comment is not a necessity, but it could avoid further process, should we be able to agree with no more fuss. If you decide not to look at it, could you name an admin you trust whom I could approach? Particularly one whom you think would give it a fresh look? --Abd (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am busy in real life and have a few other things on my Wikipedia agenda at the moment.  I prefer not to rehash old disagreements.  It is easy enough to make a fresh start.  In any case, you could approach User:Carcharoth for an independent view.  If Carcharoth tells me I've made a mistake, I will listen to the feedback carefully. Jehochman Talk 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'm disappointed that you wouldn't look at it (it should only take a few minutes), I'm pleased with your suggestion re Carcharoth. I'll contact him. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did look at it, but an outside view would be best. Jehochman Talk 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ARBPIA warning
Greetings. Thanks for handling my AE request about Jewish Internet Defense Force. I appreciate your action and, if you don't mind, I have a few questions.

1) Your warning to the user. Is that a standard text and, if so, where is it found?

2) Your warning states: "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem...." I wouldn't ask you to revise. But I'm curious, didn't you think that his Talk conduct was problematic? If so, wouldn't it be better to say that you did see a problem looming?

3) Your warning states: "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here." However, as I read the ArbCom remedies, it doesn't state clearly that warning must be given by an admin. It says "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision..." So, can't any editor make a valid warning? I gave the user this warning. To be sure, my warning is not as thorough as yours, and it lacks the necessary link back to the ArbCom decision. However, if I used your full warning in the future, couldn't I myself issue an efficacious warning to users in the future?

Thanks again for handling this and for taking the time with my questions. HG | Talk 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At WP:ARBPIA you will find a standard warning template. The language is fixed.  If you are involved in editing the article, you did exactly the right thing by taking your concerns to WP:AE for an uninvolved administrator to check. If there are further problems, rinse and repeat. Warnings from involved editors tend to carry less weight than a warning from an uninvolved party. Jehochman Talk 07:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- looking again, I did find the link to that template (in the "Log of notifications" section). Btw, I think of myself more as a facilitator than an involved party there, but I posted to AE partly because it's crucial to get a less involved perspective. If you have time, what about my second question? Maybe the template should allow that sentence to be modified? Thanks. HG | Talk 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * fyi -- I just edited the template slightly, but not that sentence (yet...). Thanks! HG | Talk 08:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think this must be in reference to me? I'm new to Wikipedia and have no clue what the message you left for me means. If you could explain, I'd appreciate it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see that other people have jumped in and provided satisfactory explanations on your talk page. Please listen to them; they seem to be providing sound advice. I'm just an uninvolved party who has access to some features of Wikipedia's software that allow me to prevent disruption by disabling user accounts (among other features). Jehochman Talk 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

doctrine of signatures
I could not find it listed under fringe. Your edit I considered detrimental to the article. You introduced historical facts in the introduction that don't belong there. The introduction is meant to introduce the concept to the reader not be a basis for discrediting it before it is defined, therefore you violated NPOV. Also note although scientific facts are used in the article, the introduction defines it as a philosophy not a science. It does not make claims to be science. I am hoping my contribution will stay in wikipedia, because it is based on the ideas of Don Tolman who is a notable figure, from his website : "Don has spoken to more than 1,000 audiences in all 50 states of America and in 7 foreign countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Singapore". He also has published a major work - the Farmacist Desk Reference. I am going to see Don give a public lecture on September 22, I may write his wikipedia entry after then if someone else doesn't do it before me. cheers, Aidan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan oz (talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jehochman. I put you edits back in with some slight modifications before seeing your post on the FTN. MartinPhi has asked if we can source a reference that isn't behind a paywall, and I agree this would be good but it obviously isn't necessary. I'll try to find some later, but as you added this ref maybe you have a few more you could put on the talk if you don't have time to integrate them. All the best. Obviously I disagree with Aidan's interpretation of NPOV above, and I'm not convinced by the notability of Don Tolman from the above. All RS is good though :) Verbal   chat  08:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no paywall there. That article is available for free.  That's how I was able to learn a little bit about the subject and confirm that the subject is notable. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my mistake. It was a ref that is already in the article that is being questioned. All the best. Verbal   chat  17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (4th)
Fredrick day isn't so easy to stop. He apparently has an ISP with a dynamic IP range of 87.112-87.115. He also uses unsecured wireless routers in his neighborhood, and other forms of access, he's been known to use IP from all over the world. It might be useful to go to checkuser just on the off chance that the sock I found was using one of his other IP addresses, but it is highly likely that he has multiple access, routinely, from his home; he probably uses separate computers and keeps accounts isolated. He has claimed that he has at least two other accounts that he does not reveal, and that one is a well-known and influential user. Fredrick day was, from registration, a fairly obvious bad hand account, but wasn't blocked as a sock puppet of another registered account; rather, he was busted for IP vandalism, most notably of Kurt Weber. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:
My editing slowed a bit for a while. I just got back in college and it takes some time from me. (being a pilot isn't easy) I probably don't have too much time for the whole FA class yet, but I will sometime soon. I've been mainly using twinkle now with image related stuff. (no source, no license etc...) Undead Warrior (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you at an aeronautics school? Jehochman Talk 02:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. K-State at Salina. It deals mainly in aviation and technology. It's just a sub-branch of K-State. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Help request
Could be please ask User:Hrafn, to stop tagging the article The Christian Virtuoso? The latest issue is that I've posted a quote from the Britanica stating that Boyle is an Anglican and he denies that this is true and reposts a tag. But the main issue is that found in the third opinion discussion on Talk:The Christian Virtuoso. I've also asked for a mediation cabal on this: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. But in the meantime, I and other editors User talk:Hrafn need someone else to step in and ask him stop. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap
It's that easy?!? Who knew?! Can I email you a spreadsheet of other people to work your magic on? :) Friday (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Better lucky than good. ;-) Jehochman Talk 21:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Twas good. HG | Talk 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Straw. Camel. Back. Beer all around. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said!
I'm not familiar with all the relevant details of this situation, but your comment at RfAr about Fritzpoll seems to me to be wise, empathic and insightful. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
The template is NOINDEX.  MBisanz  talk 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes! That's it. There is a meta robots "nofollow" attribute value too, but that's something else. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion for civility blocks etc - any ideas where?
I don't want to let a longer discussion on this topic just slip by, it seems like it's sort of important to bounce it around and hash out what everyone thinks on whether these work at all. But ANI and Arbcom's page seem like bad places.

Any ideas for where? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a problem of ArbCom's own making. We need to get them to reconsider their sanctions.  Isn't there a centralized discussion page?  Maybe we go there.  Jehochman Talk 03:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be looking for Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
 * Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
 * Your contributions are also welcome at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny <font color="#2A8B31">✉  21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
Hi Jehochman. Adding Wikipedia:BANTHEWHOLELOTOFTHEM to the RfD deletion discussion after others have comment incorrectly gives the impression that they approve applying their Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT comments to Wikipedia:BANTHEWHOLELOTOFTHEM. Once a deletion discussion starts, I think it may be too late to add any additional deletion requests. Suntag (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments and addition are timestamped. The closing administrator will understand the sequence of edits and be able to tell who is supportin what. We are very near the start of the discussion.  Many more opinions will appear.  Please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. We are not hidebound by procedures.  Regards, Jehochman Talk 17:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP
Hello, i appreciate your effort. recently, i saw your comment from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. but you doubt me. i'm not a same person with IP, Objectiveye. this is 100%.Manacpowers (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will let the others have a chance to comment, then we will see what to do next. Jehochman Talk 22:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Afd item
I noticed this item in the AFD backlog. It is about 5 days old, and it has only delete !votes on it. Would you please look at it and see if it's are worth closing? (for learning's sake: If I were an admin, I would have closed this one as "Delete". Do you agree with that?)  Thanks. Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_3

Second, does this look like consensus for me to try my first non-admin closure? SunDragon34 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Welcome, and other question
Welcome back, Tznkai. I started nosing around to see if you were a renamed account, but then I did the obvious thing and looked here for the explanation. It might be a good idea to announce yourself at WP:AN and WT:RFAR to make sure the current regulars know who you are. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome. I've already been making noise at WP:AN, but I will definitely consider it. I also had a question. Were you referring to me, or Books in this edit?--Tznkai (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Books, but if he wants to think I am referring to you, that's fine too! A little ambiguity can help people save face. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look over my shoulder on this (and well, everything else) if you want. I believe in accountability through transparency and discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/JonAwbrey
Courtesy note: there's a question directed at you at the above checkuser request page. Regards, <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny <font color="#2A8B31">✉  20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left a note there. Jehochman Talk 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo
I'd love to get along with Jimbo. Unfortunately, all I have ever heard from him after years of tireless work on this site is scorn and subtle threats. Of course, he is a human being, but ordinarily a human being will actually address the points one makes in a discussion&mdash;Jimbo stares right past them and accuses me of not supporting the civility policy, coddling trolls and promoting "wikianarchism", and essentially tells me I'm unwelcome. Everyking (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page: I responded there.
Gray62 (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. Please list usernames of those you think are socking. What makes you think I have not been checking the support votes also?  Did you know that I am a specialist in uncovering sock puppets?  See User:Jehochman/RFCU. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot what your yourself wrote in that RfA? "We are looking at the opposes because that's where there has been active sock puppetry!" Now, excuse me pls, but this sounds to me as if you're looking at the opposed editors only! You never stated otherwise, afaik.
 * Apart from this, why is the checkuser on me still not finished? In the case of that sockpuppet, with which you carelessly associated me (instead of building a seperate case for me), it took only half an hour between posting the request and the result! What's the problem??? Gray62 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn handled the checkuser request at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway and his verdict is "Unrelated to anyone else, and no evidence to suggest sockpuppetry". Well, I told you so. However, I would appreciate you posting a statement about this outcome at the discussion page of Requests for adminship/Cirt. Imho you owe me and that other guy. Gray62 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will. Of the accounts checked thus far, it looks like 5/8 were socks.  It is the nature of things that innocents sometimes get checked.  If there were a way to identify socks conclusively without checkuser, then we wouldn't need checkuser.  :-)  Jehochman Talk 18:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, thx for the explanation, but I would have preferred a simple "I apologize"... Gray62 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The facts speak more loudly than interpretations. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop this witchhunt. You are not helping Cirt's cause. Z00r (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a witch hunt. A significant additional number of oppose votes have been confirmed as socks, and will be struck.  This is one of the worst, if not the worst, cases of vote fraud I have ever seen on Wikipedia.  Be patient and the facts will be made clear shortly. Jehochman Talk 12:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TROUT
AN/I log :) -- lucasbfr  talk 16:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Rlevse — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I am a watchlist fanatic. ;-)  Thanks for that.  I am going to go strike my over the top comment.  Getting a bit steamed, yes I am, and I shall now take some tea. Jehochman Talk 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chat
I am in IRC. If you want, I would like to talk to you there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, my Firefox installation crashed, so I lost my chat client and have not reinstalled it yet. I am very sorry to argue with you. I am putting on a conference Tuesday and have guests coming from out of town. I should really get to bed instead of futzing with software.  Can we catch up later in the week? Jehochman Talk 02:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry as well. As for the chat, we can always do it later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Me and a couple of buddies here engage in occasional (or constant) dry humour which probably doesn't port well to a broader audience... and written communication and all... Whiskeydog (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Hey old friend. I know you are doing what you think is best for the project. So am I. Please don't take it personal. When this is over in a couple hours we can both go get that cup of tea. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or beer! Friendly disagreements are OK.  I don't mind. Jehochman Talk 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Beer sounds fine! Make mine Killian's Red. I only drink a few beers per year but I would be happy to lift a glass with you. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I usually drink wine, better for the arteries. Jehochman Talk 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove protection?
Hi there, I was wondering if you could please remove the protection you put on my "talk" page? I was very frustrated at the time b/c there were many mistakes being made with regard to my blocking. --Einsteindonut (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That RfA
You said "This RFA had the most cynical vote stacking I have ever seen." I noticed this at WJBScribe's talk page. It caught my interest, so I'm off to have a look. Have you said more about this elsewhere, or is it something better e-mailed? Carcharoth (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I see now. The oppose section is a mess, and the talk page has lots. That's enough for me to see roughly what is going on. Carcharoth (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Aside from the Cirt fracas, there has been long term socking and disruption at Landmark Education and related articles.  That, I think, is a more serious problem that may need following up. Jehochman Talk 11:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good conflict resolution
Sorry if this sounds condescending or partisan, but I'd like to congratulate you, Jonathan, for reaching out to bury past conflict and move forward positively, here and here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It is very important not to prolong disputes beyond their natural end. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now if only someone could bottle that splendid attitude and sell it! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Acid attack
Could you give this thread and the second paragraph of this section an overview for me (see also this diffs). Am concerned that this issue may need to go to the Ethnic conflicts group - but I would like to prevent it from escalating that far. I asked User:Coren to look at this weeks ago, they have ignored my post.

Could you also look at this edit and the source it purports to reflect - looks to me like it has serious weight issues as well as needing to be rephrased. What do think? Am I wrong here?

I'm sorry to bug you with this but I am swamped in real life - I'm also in need of a second pair of eyes to double check what I'm saying here--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Cailil, this thread eluded me during a busy few days. Is the matter still pendant? Jehochman Arrr! 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The changing of the guard
You think your silly anti will keep the evil twin out? Haha! We all studying for developer status! <font face="comic sans ms">  bishzilla    ROA R R! !     21:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC).