Jump to content

User talk:Jehochman/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Your block

I don't have a huge problem with your block resulting from Giano's complaint. However, given that two admins, including yours truly, looked at the situation and decided not to block, I think it would have been courteous to give us some advance word and the opportunity for discussion, to make sure you understood what went into our decisions and made sure you were privy to all information. The time would not have mattered, the complaint was already stale. Please consider doing that in future. No reply needed unless you feel it is necessary. Thanks for your service to WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Any time I see one user calling another user a "cock sucker" I will block them without further ado. There is no excuse or explanation possible for that sort of edit (except perhaps a compromised account, which clearly was not the case here). I agree that this is not worth quarreling about. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent comment and suggestion on my talkpage. It would have been good advice coming from anyone, but as you were the blocking admin it seems especially meaningful. Just so we're clear, there are no bad feelings on my part regarding the fact that you blocked me. In terms of policy I might disagree about the propriety of taking disciplinary action that long after an event, but it was within your discretion and certainly not abusive in any way. Thanks for being so even-handed with someone you had recently blocked. Doc Tropics 14:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the thing. I saw veiled insults from both sides, but the porridge was cooled long before I saw it, had I gotten to it in the fresh aftermath of the exchange, I might have blocked both for short periods. But what is it with Giano? I don't mean anything negative, but obviously there's history of which I'm not aware. Please feel free to email me if you think it helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Being unfamiliar with the history of Giano, I'd caution you not to intervene in disputes involving him because good faith actions often lead to the opposite of the intended result. I am not advocating for special treatment of Giano, rather I suggest sensitivity to all users: try to understand each and do what is right for them. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to move on

Sorry to bother you but I really don't want this whole thing to become any more of an issue than it already has. I had personally resolved to avoid any future interaction Giano and had returned to normal editing. Unfortunately, a recent comment[1] by him on my personal talkpage was rather provocative. I intend to delete the post rather than respond to what I percieve as a deliberate insult, but I would really, really prefer to avoid any personal contact with an editor who I now believe is attempting to provoke me. As a neutral but previously-involved third party, I'm hoping that you'll consider my position reasonable and be willing to communicate this to him so that we may all avoid any further disruption. Thanks for your time, Doc Tropics 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about that. I have left Giano a talk page message. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's appreciated. Doc Tropics 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


194x RFC

I recently opened an RFC/U on 194x. Looking back over the case, I'm not sure that I can give an example of me properly trying to resolve the dispute (failing, on the other hand...). I did link a diff of you warning 194x that his behavior was over the line: would you be willing to certify the RFC? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any diffs of 194x being obnoxious after my polite suggestion that he disengage from these conflicts? Jehochman Talk 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's his response to the Arb request, and this later diff where he calls us tendentious. Is that what you had in mind, or should I keep digging? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with pressing this user into a corner until they crack under the pressure. Jehochman Talk 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Can you add that to the RFC as well, then? I'd like it to be balanced and as accurate as possible.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The user shows signs of stress. Now is not a good time for an RFC. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that 194x threatened to escalate against Scjessey 2 days ago. Granted, they have not once actually followed through on these threats, but they are very wearing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I recommend WP:SHUN. If you ignore them thoroughly and they keep pestering, then I can do something about it. While you are paying them unwanted attention, they are entitled to respond to perceived pressures. Jehochman Talk 17:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI and comment if you wish

Hi Jonathon, as you were involved in this matter earlier on you might like to read and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of community ban: Igorberger.--VS talk 22:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with this discussion

Hi Jehochman. I will greatly appreciate if you would participate in the following discussion. This is a little complicated case involving important decision to be made about the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article. You have handled several complicated cases. Your comments here will be of great help with reference to this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question. Thanks for your help. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I answered your questions in the reliable source noticeboard. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm back

I think I'm back to wiki for another shot at this :) I had to take a long break for family issues and navy issues and school issues. A whole lot of crap that would make a normal person explode. (Thank god i'm a nerd) Just thought I'd stop by and say hello. Undead Warrior (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you UW for leaving me a note. Welcome back and I hope you find some interesting articles to edit. Let me know if you need any sort of help. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My intended checkuser votes

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009

Feel free to discuss. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you! I am not sure we have ever spoken before. Do you really, really mean it that you will help reduce the waiting times at WP:SPI? It takes the same effort to run Checkuser promptly, or to let the applicants sit and wait for three days. Slow service means we have to wait and suffer (or risk our bits by placing sock blocks on feelings rather than technical evidence). Jehochman Talk 03:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As much as I can when I'm online. Currently my routine on logging in is check messages, deal with unblock requests (several of which are often waiting for CU input), check in at ArbCom, then find something to do. It shouldn't be that big a hassle to add "check in at SPI" in there, although it may take me a little time to get the swing of things again (since as I said in my statement I haven't been terribly active of late, and I'd just be getting used to the tools). I'll certainly do what I can; that's the main purpose for CU, and I think it would be rather silly to request it and then not do what I could for SPI. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I voted, but after reading through all the statements I changed my mind in several instances. If any candidate wants to discuss my votes (or abstentions) here, they are welcome to do so. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My intended oversight votes

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009

My votes are based on how well I know the person and how much I trust them to handle the most sensistive situations. I may be opposing good candidates merely because I don't know them well enough.

Feel free to discuss. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

May I trouble you to explain your reason, please? -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure. That's why I posted here before voting, because there's a chance I may change my mind. Oversight is the tool most likely to ignite a major drama. Can you show me a situation or two where you defused a ticking drama bomb? (Feel free to copy my question and your answer to your questions section of the election if you like.) Jehochman Talk 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I could point to some recent e-mails on the func-l list, but I cannot post them here, sorry :). I tend to try and minimize my involvement in unnecessary drama, as I think it is counter productive to the project, but as you want some examples, these may help:
I'm certain that there are others, but I hope this gives you a decent cross-section over a long period of time. -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I will review these matters and consider them when I vote. Jehochman Talk 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Oversight is the tool most likely to ignite a major drama" - I would have to disagree. It's the block tool that causes the most drama, when it is applied to the 'wrong' person. I can only think of one incident involving oversight that caused issues, and it wasn't even a big deal to most people. Just how many blocking incidents have caused a major drama? 99% of oversights are done without public knowledge. What oversight candidates need to show is that they understand the oversight and privacy policy and that they have clue. Nothing else is really needed, apart from perhaps, some basic integrity skills when dealing with issues from people unfamiliar.
  • As for checkuser, that's a different story. Some level of knowledge regarding IP addresses is obviously needed, as well as knowledge of the relevant policies. But again, it's clue that's most important here. Hundreds of checks get done a day without most people even being aware of it, so it's not like making checks is a rare and delicate process that requires fantastic skills related to mediation. It's simply not necessary.
  • In short, these two tools are tools, and I personally believe a huge deal is made out of them, when really, the block tools causes more problems than them both put together, and we hand that out much more liberally. Majorly talk 17:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My question goes along with Majorly's comment above. How is oversight dramatic? Most of it is behind the scenes, and it's now reversible. Lara 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can think of two huge dramas where Oversight came into play. For the most part our Oversighters are highly clueful; they are extremely careful not to set off drama bombs. We need to keep it that way. In my experience Oversight response times have always been excellent. Therefore, I think we can afford to be very selective.
Checkuser is a technical tool that is often employed at the height of a drama, and is often the final word (yes, these are socks, or no they are not). Privacy concerns about Checkuser are important, but I think that any of the candidates above could be trusted to follow privacy policy. For the checkuser elections I am mainly concerned about whether the candidates want the tool for their own convenience, or whether they plan to spend substantial time patrolling WP:SPI. Yes, I am concerned about what's in it for me. I want candidates who will attend promptly when I request checkuser help. Often I have to wait a long time, and this is inconvenient for me. Jehochman Talk 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on the two situations? I only recall one, and it is from a few years ago when Oversight was used, which caused attribution problems and could not be reversed; as opposed to the current use of Suppression, which does not cause the same problems and is also reversible. Are either of the incidents in your mind those involving the use of Suppression and, if not, can you explain how the use of Suppression could cause the dropping of a "drama bomb"? Lara 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is fair to drag editors through the mud again. Let's not speak of it. It will be best for Wikipedia to have Oversighters who will not elicit cries of "conspiracy" when they use the tool. Jehochman Talk 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I voted, but after reading through all the statements I changed my mind in several instances. If any candidate wants to discuss my votes (or abstentions) here, they are welcome to do so. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
May I ask what was it about my statement that caused you to change your mind? (just curious) Mr.Z-man 04:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a great deal of personal respect for you. However, I am concerned that you are very wrapped up in non-content areas of the encyclopedia. (I have the same tendency myself.) Compare this list to this list. All types of contributions are valid, but I think we should encourage editors to maintain some sort of balance. Jehochman Talk 05:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've been mulling over whether or not to post here, but as you're inviting me to do so, I'm happy to. Are you looking for evidence of defusing ticking drama bombs from every candidate, or was that aimed just at Avi? --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted. You are wise to understand the risk of posting into such a situation, but you assumed good faith, which makes me trust you more. I had originally thought to oppose candidates I did not know well, but then I realized that such people might not be well known to me because they go about their business calmly. Thus, I decided to look into matters more closely with those candidates. Your editing records impressed me because even though you handle a lot of project work, you still make time to edit articles. Jehochman Talk 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. I'd like to discuss this further, but think it'll take us into territory inappropriate for me while I'm a candidate. When the voting's all done, I'll be back; if I forget, please nudge me. --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking an intrest Jehochman. I walked away from that whole discussion as a waste of time and move back to editing Articles. As you probably noticed I've spent a bit of time on an Article I never edited before building it up and referencing it likewise this one here which is related. When I seen the others arrive I knew it was trouble. Rannpháirtí anaithnid Mooretwin Evertype GoodDay. Now I don't give a fig who edits it, but just coming along with silly edits is a pain. I got together about 15 books on the subject so it is going to take a bit of time, I just don't need to be getting dragged into more fruitless discussions. --Domer48'fenian' 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic Reports?

I've been looking for definitions of the term "traffic report", "internet traffic report", "website traffic report", "google/yahoo traffic report", or anything remotely similar to these terms in Wikipedia on the subject of SEO, and so far have only found definitions relating to automobile traffic reports. Is this relevant at all to this article? I'm a new user, but I think in relation to Search Engine Optimization, the explanation of what a traffic report is and what it measures is important when talking about SEO as well as search engine placement. The problem I've been having is that I haven't been able to find a published work or dictionary definition of what a traffic report is. I do know that there are many search engine placement companies that all use a similar definition, but I don't know if these are credible enough to cite or use as references. What I'm familiar with as far as what a traffic report actually is, is basically that it is a report that search engine placement companies use to analyze how well their clients are doing by showing how many impressions bought search phrases are getting (impressions = how many searchers are seeing the search phrase on the search engine), how many times the phrases are being clicked on, and how many conversions these clicks are turning into (conversions = how many potential clients these clicks/phrases are generating). They can also show how long searchers are staying on the sites from the phrases, depending on what the company chooses to report, and possibly even more than this, but these are just the basics as I understand them to be. Some companies also offer these reports to their clients to show that they are performing the paid for service. I guess I'm asking do you think this is relevant enough to define and explain, and if so, what sources do think would be the most reliable and useful to use? Lizzardo (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure this term is sufficiently notable to be covered by a Wikipedia article. Jehochman Talk 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

heh

We must never cross the streams, lest we get marshmallow on ourselves. –xenotalk 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection

See Wikipedia talk:PROT#No silver padlock shown; Talk page semi-locked, an IP has some suggestions for content on a page that is doubly-locked. –xenotalk 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've since redacted the most recent post. I'm not sure if there has been discussion on this elsewhere? –xenotalk 15:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

Well done: defusing a situation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but perhaps you should wait before complimenting me. I'm not sure it's fully defused. Jehochman Talk 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I meant well done attempting to defuse, or something. I think it's OK now, though, and that your intervention helped. Or that I thought your posts were well constructed and likely to be effective, or something. LOL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Your help may be needed

Arbitrators prepare for a drama prone RFC

I am concerned that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 is going to generate much more heat than light. Jehochman Talk 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan. I've got no comment for the time being. I am just keeping an eye. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, stand by with a full charge of drama-suppressing foam. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a request to close right now. <* thinking *> — Ched :  ?  08:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Awww crap. I reached down and found that I did have a pair. We'll see what happens I guess. — Ched :  ?  10:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ...

... I do believe that is the first time that I didn't agree with your decision. Not that my opinion is important in the least, but I did want make note of it. I suspect it will be a very rare occasion. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (referencing the ANI thread closing)

Yeah. My concern is that when people go straight in looking for a block I want to make sure I'm not getting involved in any games. Also, demanding an apology is itself rude. I'm not going to block somebody for rudeness when the person requesting the block is also being a little rude. In a different set of circumstances I might be convinced to block. Those remarks were close to or slightly over the line, but all factors need to be considered, including drama and disruption potential. The subject of the thread appears to have disengaged from the conflict. Should they resume, let me know and I will be less generous next time. Jehochman Talk 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't think that "block" was what should be done - not in the least, on that part I agree. It was rather that I thought the discussion should have been allowed to continue. I have a great deal of respect for both David and Slim, and I was rather shocked to see that conversation. I thought it should be pointed out to David - "Hey, calm down, and get your act together", but I didn't think it was cause for a block at all. Many folks here are very passionate about what they do, and I think that is a good thing. Sometimes emotions get the best of us - I think that is to be expected. I also agree that apologies can not be "demanded", rather they are earned. These civility issues are at the forefront of many editors thoughts these days. I was only in disagreement with closing the conversation. I'm no longer in a situation where I need to "get help" in most respects. Of course if I was directly involved in a matter, then I would indeed ask for extra eyes on a situation. I was just surprised that you "closed" the situation, not in your suggestions. I suspect that you may be a bit surprised at how often I whole-heartedly agree with you, even if I do often "watch" rather than "type". — Ched :  ?  19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I should have just moved the discussion to WP:WQA and let it continue there where nobody was at risk of being blocked. Feel free to do that if you think it is the right choice. Be sure to notify the participants if you do. Thank you for your kind words. Jehochman Talk 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My apologies if I inadvertently added "fuel" rather than "foam" to the situation Jehochman. That honestly was not my intent. You do indeed have my utmost respect sir. I suspect that there were the best of intentions all the way around, hopefully it has been a learning experience for all those involved - and we are one step closer to "understanding" now. Thank you for your input, your advice and thoughts are valued more than you may realize. All my best. — Ched :  ?  12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I should have waited for you to move the thread.  :-P Jehochman Talk 12:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL ... User:Ched = chicken. :-) — Ched :  ?  08:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A hand if possible

Hi Jehochman as you know I'm working on the Laudabiliter article. I'm expanding the related articles as I go, expanding them if possible. One of the articles I wish to create is on the Synod of Cashel. The problem is that the Synod of Cashel keeps linking to the Laudabiliter? I don't know how to fix this and any help would be welcome. Thanks a chara, --Domer48'fenian' 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When there's a redirect, you'll see a little blue link under the title. You can click that, which in this case leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synod_of_Cashel&redirect=no. Then click edit and replace the redirect instruction with whatever content you are adding. Jehochman Talk 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's sound a chara, fixed it! It was the redirect I could not find, but thanks to your link I'm back in the game. I just hope it's not deleted before I have a chance to build it up. LOL, thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no more in the mood for this row rising at the minute and you mentioned something way back when about avoiding baiting? Any suggestions? My first reaction is to ignore, but that does not seem to work in my experiance. I'll just carry on editing for the time being? --Domer48'fenian' 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

MFD

This is to let you know that your name has been brought up at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community_sanction. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you did not catch the gist of what I was saying, so I've clarified it for you in my reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, I agree that if ArbCom declines this request, the best course of action would be to propose a community ban. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeffrey_D._Gordon

Hi Jehochman, as you requested, I have added details to the page/section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeffrey_D._Gordon. Please accept my apology for failing to include the details beforehand--I just wasn't thinking!   bsmithme  23:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI report changes

Hi Jehochman. I am impressed with the changes you've worked up to ANI reporting and am following their implementation with interest. One thing I noticed is that parties who are in dispute with an editor, but not the main parties in a conflict, are still weighing in heavily on discussions. My understanding was that the formatting was intended to make it clear who had involvement and who is an interested part (so to speak), but that aspect doesn't quite seem to working effectively yet.

I'm not sure how it can be made clear who disputants, as opposed to neutral parties, are. But I think that was part of the intent of the changes and would be very helpful if it could be accomplished. I'm sure there will still be gray areas and just because someone has a past conflict doesn't mean they are prohibited from commenting, but for long running feuds, I've noticed there can be regular teaming up.

Maybe a neutral observers commenting section? That way people would have to assert that they are actually neutral instead of just as uninvolved or NOT involved (however it works now). An "interested" parties section instead of just the "involved", or some other distinction for people who are not independent of the dispute and the disputants. Anyway, thanks again for your work. I just wanted to share my thoughts. Maybe I should have posted in the relevant discussion on the AN talk page? Feel free to move my comment there or let me know and I will do so. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, nevermind. No system is perfect, and part of the closing admin's job is to weigh discussion and to evaluate the statements. I think "interested parties" and ganging up is a problem, but I don't see a perfect solution. I think the new format has been effective in organizing comments better so its a big step in the right direction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Incrementalism. One more thing, could you scrupulously avoid commenting on Baseball Bugs. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashley kennedy3 unblock

Hello Jehochman, I was wondering if you would consider lifting the block of Ashley Kennedy3 and just keep it as the ARBPIA topic ban. If you look at Ashley's talk page you can see that his expert level of research could be used in a number of less contentious areas that would be a great help to improving the encyclopedia. Thanks, nableezy - 16:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The user should file an unblock request and state what they would like to contribute going forward. Jehochman Talk 19:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
But as that was an arbitration block it needs to go through you, as the blocking admin, or WP:AE right? nableezy - 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
They should file an unblock request, and then whoever shows up to review the matter will consult with me. Don't worry over the logistics. That's the easy part. Jehochman Talk 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens AN/I discussion

I'd agree with your hatting if it hadn't been mentioned recently in that thread that Jclemens has opened an Obama-sanctions case over Simon Dodd's incivility. Does that change your opinion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard improvements

Following the implementations of the improved directions at ANI I was was wondering if you think the same should be done for the content noticeboard? This discussion made me think of it: Wikipedia talk:Content noticeboard#Awareness and scope. I would actually like to see some of the noticeboards be combined, but I think links in the eidt window to BLP, 3O, COI, and other boards might be nice. I'm not very technical, but I assume it could then be used on those boards (with slight modifications) like a template so that navigation of all these pages is made easier? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Have been meaning to say thank you for your recent support vote. I had noticed and respected your initial commentary and thoughts as your absolute prerogative - only to be pleasantly surprised at your change of view after you had read my nom statement and answers to questions. I saw your support as being most particularly a sign of having read and considered.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jehochman Talk 00:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if I could discuss something important via email. I will appreciate your response. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My email is enabled. Jehochman Talk 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried to look for the email link in your userpage. May be I am not looking at the right place. Please let me know. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Ignore the above message. I figured it out. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
When you get a chance please check your email. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Hello. Could you review your edit to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? I am having issues parsing the new "When modifying a comment, you can a parenthetical note pointing out the change" part [2]. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR opened

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Darkohead

You might want to watch Darkohead (talk · contribs)'s contributions - a few are ok, but a lot are problematic at best. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ban Evasion Allegation

Jehochman, I'm being accused of ban evasion, and since you are the banning administrator, I want to make it quite clear to you that the anonymous IP is absolutely not myself. The edits were simply not in relation to a matter that I actively get involved in. I have often seen an IP server number like that in the past. I haven't checked this time, but I'll bet it traces to Virginia.

I think this whole thing has gone a bit over the top. I have no intention of editing on the speed of light article. I have made my argument quite clear. The edit that I was building up to would have been abandoned as a result of the controversy over the issue that followed from the discussion. I was intending to put in a section regarding the experimental determination of electric permittivity, and how the numerical result yields the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) which Maxwell then incorporated into his electromagnetic wave theory. I taught that in my teaching days, but I'm just learning now that it has been scrapped in recent years, and that it inflames raw nerves. The ban was unnecessary because I had already stopped editing the main article. I was merely voicing my opinion that the change in the definition of the metre in 1983 had a large enough impact to warrant clarification in the article. There is no need for all these allegations of crankery and over the top topic bans. But if the topic ban remains, then so be it. I'll adhere to it. But I do not want to be accused of ban evasion every time some anonymous goes to the article. David Tombe (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you supply diffs showing the accusation? Although you are only banned from the two pages, you must also avoid disrupting any other pages. You've been advised many times about the requirements for contributing to Wikipedia. If you make problematic edits to any page, there is a chance you could be sanctioned independently of the page ban. Please take care. Regards, Jehochman Talk 00:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I appreciate that I should not be disrupting any pages, and I don't intend to disrupt any pages. However, I can assure you that I was not disrupting any pages, and I would always welcome a warning if I thought that my behaviour was in any way stepping over the line. But in this particular case, I wasn't even involved on the main page in question at the time this initial thread was opened. The page had recently been protected due to an edit war that I had absolutely nothing to do with, and following the unlocking of the page, I had made no edits to it. I was however expressing the opinion on the talk page that the article should make a clear distinction between the concept of the speed of light pre-1983 and post-1983 as a consequence of the re-definition of the metre. One editor then came here and accused me of disruptive editing on that basis.

Anyway, here is one of the diffs in which I am being accused of evasion. [3]. I can assure you that the anon in question is not myself. David Tombe (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I saw your entry at ANI suggesting that a checkuser be done, despite the fact that I have assured you that I have not evaded the ban. I'm very disappointed that you appear to be more interested in matters of procedure than in examining the reasons for the ban in the first instant. I was not editing on the main article when you banned me. My recent edits, for which you need to go to the second history page to see, did not cause any major problem. And I did not make those anonymous edits yesterday. I would be obliged if you would lift the ban, not only as a matter of principle, but also because it is highly inappropriate to have me listed under that ARBCRANK section when my arguments on the talk page were merely to point out that the change in the concept of the speed of light since 1983 needs to be highlighted in the article. That is not crank physics.
If the purpose of the ban was to prevent disruption, then it was pointless because I was not disrupting the article. I know the rules and I have been very careful to avoid breaking them. Can you show me any evidence of disruption? You claimed that I have been warned many times about disruptive behaviour, and that seems to have been the basis for your premature decision. I certainly have a block record and I have was accused of disruptive behaviour in relation to some of those blocks, but that is not a basis upon which to assume that any future allegations must be true. I would hope that I was not found guilty soley on the basis of previous convictions.
How is it going to look if this matter is investigated and it is shown that you banned a person from a page that they had not been editing on at the time, and on which they had not been involved in any edit wars. It seems that you were far too quick to believe what was written by a few other editors. What you should really having been asking yourself was why my opinions on the talk page were causing a hysterical reaction. That's what I'd like to know too. You know it makes sense to lift this ban. And I hope that the next time that spurious allegations appear against me at ANI that the administrators will examine the situation for opportunism, based on my block record.
You must be fully aware of the fact that certain editors have almost total liberty to be uncivil. You've only got to look at the ANI thread in question for ample examples of insults and assumptions of bad faith that have been totally ignored.
I read recently that there has been at least one case where an editor got a three hour block for a very definite insult. If that can cause alot of trouble, we need to get things into perspective when compared to an indefinite ban on an editor who wasn't even editing on the main article in question.
The boss himself has indicated his preference for a one year maximum for bans. How do you think he would view an indefinite ban on an editor in relation to a page where he can't find my name on the first history page? 81.156.5.42 (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)David Tombe (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
David: Why don't you go ask Jimbo what he thinks, instead of making this silly little threat? He has the authority to entertain an appeal from a block or ban, and to reverse it if he is persuaded that the action was unjustified. You may appreciate that you should not disrupt pages, but you fail to appreciate that do disrupt pages. It is unfortunate, especially for you, that you have thus far been unable to understand that your behavior on Wikipedia has been, and continues to be, tendentious. That is an objective fact, regardless of what you may think. Whether you are right or wrong about some subject, your manner of expressing yourself, both in discussion and in your editing, is the opposite of persuasive to most of the other editors whom you need to persuade—that is, those who do not already agree with you. This will continue to cause you increasing trouble on Wikipedia until you change your tendentious behaviour. Believe it or not, I am actually trying to help you by saying this. —Finell (Talk) 21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman: Tombe did go to Jimbo, but he misrepresented why you page banned him and didn't reveal the AN/I: Topic Ban following non-involvement. I don't think this user will "experience less pressure" until his current mode of behaviour on Wikipedia stops, either because he changes his behavior or because he is prevented from behaving here at all. —Finell (Talk) 02:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

What do you think? Although the evidence is only circumstantial, I thought it was suspicious when one IP popped up out of nowhere to support Tombe as a propitious moment. Now it turns out from the discussion at AN/I that several other IPs have jumped in to support him in the past. Checkuser may be able to put an end to the speculation, one way or the other. A checkuser request from you would be more persuasive than one from me. Come to think of it, a checkuser request by David, to end the suspicion of him, might be more persuasive still. David, are you willing? —Finell (Talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in raising the heat. The user might adapt better if he experiences less pressure. The burden for filing checkuser is on those making the accusations. The nature of my comment is either to encourage somebody to go through with it, or to discourage the accusations. Anyone can file a checkuser request. Jehochman Talk 02:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield, alien

There were some unconfirmed reports that Copperfield is an alien. I was looking for citations, but can't find a reliable one. I'll keep looking. --AStanhope (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A little green man, or a foreigner? Jehochman Talk 04:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
<humor> If the former were the case, then I think the latter would generally follow as well? </humor> Doc Tropics 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
How *does* immigration policy apply to non-humans? Excellent question. --AStanhope (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe laws only apply to humans. Moose can cross from Canada to the US without any sort of border control. Jehochman Talk 01:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
True, but the Supreme Court once ruled that eating the Flag is not protected speech.. Doc Tropics 01:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Drew R. Smith

I was just giving him a final warning at the same time you were blocking him. I'll not overturn but I think "one last warning" is where we need to be. As you think best, though. You can reply here, I'll see it. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What an edit conflict...Let him be blocked for a while, and if he makes a convincing unblock request, I will grant it. I think he should remain blocked for about a week so he time to think about what he's done. A lot of volunteer resources were wasted responding to his trolling. There has to be a consequence for that to deter future instances. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Which is the blocked sock account? I'd like to look at that account's history. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. I think also the users' block log should have a note of his blocks on his other account(s) and IP(s). –xenotalk 13:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, some people check their emails regularly (like me) some don't - you have mail. ViridaeTalk 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

J: LMK if you need more info, you know my email address. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Um... I can edit under my IP now. I can also create accounts (which I have not done). I am still blocked under my user name... Was this done on purpose? Drew - 75.93.119.255 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The autoblock on your IP doesn't last a full week. The block on your main account expired 6-7 minutes ago. If you ever get blocked again, don't edit as an IP. That could be viewed as block evasion and get your main account blocked longer. At this point, no harm, no foul. Happy editing. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I didnt edit under my IP until today, as I was waiting for my block to expire, and only out of curiosity. My only edits were to my own sandbox and here. Drew Smith What I've done 13:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. Using Lupins antivandal tool isn't doing much. People are almost always there before me. Could you possibly reinstate my rollbacker rights, which I've already pointed out have never been misused?Drew Smith What I've done 13:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and  Done this, especially in light of the fact that the user is having trouble with alternates. –xenotalk 13:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the last section on my talk page please? Prodego talk 23:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
And as an RD semi-regular who has followed a bit of the non-RD history and is watching the current RD-related discussion at SteveBaker's talk, could I ask for Drew to be given ample time to present his defence? If these suggestions are proved, then it will be a very serious charge against Drew. Very serious. He should have ample opportunity to respond, but we do need to see an adequate response. I'm always surprised to see how well the RDs take care of their own, almost a separate society. This may be an exception. Franamax (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:WOTTA is RD? A hoax at the reference desk is a loss of face, for sure, and may call other contributions into question, but I'm not exactly sure what needs to be done here other than set the record straight that the image presented was doctored and should not be relied upon. Jehochman Talk 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, "RD" is shorthand for what a loser you are for not knowing what it stands for, I win! ;) Sorry for that, it surely is a separate world with its own ethos and an uneasy co-existence with en:wiki policies. To name just one, original research is treated quite differently on the RD's.
More seriously, the issue is not hoaxing so much as it is fabricating primary sources. If I'm reading things right, this happened on 24 June, which is before 05 July as mentioned elsewhere as a possible reason for craziness or other people using the computer. The image itself of course needs examination and explication.
Fabrication of primary sources is way more serious, it calls into question personal integrity in a much greater way than, for example, misinterpreting primary sources or misquoting secondary sources. Whether this happens at a reference desk, at an article, or on a talk page is irrelevant. Fabricating a source is pushing into just about as bad as behaviour gets. We're not talking about what a diligent wiki-editor can divine here, this is about what the average reader will see and take for granted. Franamax (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If he forged a source, and is continuing to say that it is a real source, that is a big problem, regardless of where it was. If it is real, he should be allowed to clear that up by uploading an image proving he is correct. Prodego talk 01:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your warning of User:AJackl under discussion at ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_behavior_by_User:AJackl. I brought up that you had previously warned the AJackl (talk · contribs) for related issues, therefore you may wish to be aware of this discussion and comment. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A cold eye needed

A chara, could you possibly run your eye over this nonsense both here and this report being put together by O Fenian here. This disruption is being played out on a number of articles. Here were have an Admin adding back in WP:OP added by a disruptive IP. They then lock an article because of the same disruption. The same disruptive IP here, and here. They already caused disruption on this article with these ones still locked here still here.

This POV edit warring IP, now know to be Cromwellian Conquest per this sock report a title supported in my opinion by both their edit warring [4] [5] [6] [7] edit summaries, talk page commentspersonal attacks [8] [9] [and their sectarian rants in addition to their previous edit warring all being the same edit, [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. They were allowed to disrupt the project for days.

Any help is welcome. --Domer48'fenian' 18:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm unable to look at this promptly enough. Please post to a noticeboard for action. Regards, Jehochman Talk 02:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions which noticeboard would be the most applicable. WP:ANI is for me at least, very unwelcoming at the best of times, regardless of how valid the issue. --Domer48'fenian' 12:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have outlined just a breif outline of the issue here and it just may be addressed. I do understand with the IP abuse it will be difficult to address. --Domer48'fenian' 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashley kennedy3

Just FYI, at this point: User talk:Amalthea#Request for unblock. Cheers, Amalthea 08:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

HI, I am at least aware of the reasons for his blocking now. Thanks. I personally think it is a dispute that could easily be resolved if Ashley would promise to let it rest. From what I've seen he has been a great contributor to the project in the past, contributions that are much needed, especially about places. He also has knowledge of coordinates of old villages and we need him working on these articles. Could he be given another chance? He has been blocked for four months already? I would say that if he be given another chance and then if he continues what was causing the problem again, then resume the block. I'd like to see what Ashley has to say about it... Himalayan 09:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashley has informed me that the article in consideration which got him blocked reels off lists of atrocities by one side and mostly ignores those committed by the other side. Maybe we should open a RFC as in my view wikipedia should strive to be neutral and cover both sides completely evenly and fairly. Himalayan 09:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I would like to add just a comment or two because I think that my own behaviour at the time contributed to the severity of the suspension you dealt out to AK (Sandstein and PhilKnight were mulling a month or six weeks) in part, in the heat of the moment. However, I will withhold comment, unless an administrator who knows the way these sanctions work out in my case, gives me the go ahead to drop a note, because it is not clear to me whether I might put in a word on AK's behalf without infringing my I/P permaban (which I have absolutely no intention of challenging).Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See AN thread

I mentioned an administrative warning you gave in a new AN post, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs. Cirt (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

D Tombe & speed of light

I regret your page ban on D Tombe, and think it is unwarranted. He has a different view from orthodoxy on several issues, but that does not mean his contributions are not useful. He has added helpful discussions of historical matters in the past, and on this page speed of light has simply sought to point out some misconceptions held by many of the editors contributing at the moment who are unable to argue points logically or by reference to sources and would rather settle matters by this sort of administrative action executed by an administrator who is perhaps not able or perhaps unwilling to delve into the details of the matter. This block should be rescinded, most especially upon the Talk page where it simply stifles discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you are aware that Talk page discussion often takes the form of rhetoric rather than a simple exchange of opinion. Thoughts undergo evolution with back and forth eventually, but some editors are impatient with this process and would prefer to simply state their opinions and have them adopted. That, in my opinion, is the case with DVdm & Physchim62, and possibly a few others at times. They support a page ban like this to avoid the pain of reconsideration of their divine insights. Brews ohare (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chatroom. We do not welcome those pushing fringe views. Don't follow his bad example. Jehochman Talk 07:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on now Jehochman, that was somewhat of an arbitrary judgement with respect to what constitutes a fringe theory in relation to the dispute in question. Brews has provided some very good sources that are avalible to read on-line. David Tombe (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in evaluating the content. You both need to avoid circular arguing, disregarding consensus, and disrupting various pages. You can propose something once, but when it is rejected you have to stop. When you continue pushing your novel theories of physics on the same page and on other pages, eventually it becomes blockable disruption. Go try a physics journal, not Wikipedia. We don't publish novel ideas here. Jehochman Talk 15:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, The novel ideas that you are talking about are commentaries that have appeared in a number of textbooks regarding a novel definition of the metre. David Tombe (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

David: So you keep saying, and I'm sure that you believe it. If you want anyone else to accept it, cite the specific sources (with web links if they exist) and quote the language; without that, you are just wasting your time and everyone else's. The consensus is that you are misinterpreting the literature. —Finell (Talk) 18:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I'm not involved in the debate. But I can see a problem right this very second with the existing introduction at speed of light. It states in the introduction that the speed of light is a fundamental constant. This reference here states that the numerical speed of light in the new SI units is not a fundamental constant. It's a matter of plain English. There is no scope for misinterpretation. We are all too long on the tooth for you to be trying the old argument about misinterpretation. You can see the exact quote down the first column (section 3.4). [21]. Brews and at least one other editor want to clarify this misleading piece of information in the introduction. To do so does not constitute novel ideas or crank science. David Tombe (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Three sources have been repeatedly referred to and quoted at length. Additional sources have been presented and quoted at length in earlier discussions on the Talk page. A majority of editors follow Martin Hogbin's lead in ignoring these sources and parroting each other. It is simply a case of the blind leading the blind and pushing majority rule. The notion of using sources to support opinion is ignored, and the result is a clear test case for procedures that might enforce discussion of sources in place of hectoring.
Repetition of argument that is supported by direct quotation from multiple reputable sources should not be considered by administrators as a belligerent prosecution of 'novel' ideas. Only repeated pleas to consider sources has any hope of reversing entrenched misconception.
It will not do for administrators to assess the situation by counting how many editors say A and how many say B. They must instead look whether there exists support using sources and determine whether the editors are actually discussing sources or pushing private opinions. I believe it is the latter in the case of the majority of participants. I don't think they have axes to grind; they just are not really thinking. As with most protracted debates on technical topics, the trouble stems from using the same words to describe different things; editors tend to grab the sense that they are used to and confuse the meanings. Brews ohare (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Administrators do not resolve content disputes. Administrators deal with editors whose behavior violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please do not disparage or attack other editors who disagree with you, such as by saying that they "not really thinking". —Finell (Talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for trying to understand these editors' actions; however, "not really thinking" is not terribly pejorative - I engage in that myself (although not just now). However, the issue is not a content dispute. The issue is reiteration of mere unsourced opinion and refusal to address sourced, extensively quoted opposed opinion available on line to anyone. Brews ohare (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of Tombe page ban requested

Is it acceptable that David Tombe is continuing to promote his fringe views and attack other editors as he is doing here, here, here, here, and elsewhere? Perhaps I am overly naive, but I would expect a request for an editor to stay away from one particular article might also include refraining from obsessing about that article throughout the encyclopedia. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

Brews ohare has continued to beat Tobme's drum, relentlessly. He has ignored your warning. Someone else brought his conduct to AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light; your comments there would be helpful. In addition, Brews created a WP:CFORK to reflect the Tobme–ohare point of view, Speed of light (1983 definition), which was deleted. —Finell (Talk) 22:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This "fork" (actually a specialized subtopic of the main article) was deleted by myself and was introduced for very specific purposes stated at the time of its creation. Finell is making mountains out of molehills here. Brews ohare (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This claim by Finell connecting me to the views of D Tombe is pure fabrication. I have my own views based upon my own sources and I simply cannot understand the absent minded connection of myself to D Tombe. David has some extreme positions I do not share, and a view that the definition of 1983 introduced a different status for the speed of light, which I agree with and which is absolutely beyond all controversy, being supported not only by secondary sources of repute, but by NIST and the BIPM themselves. It is simply sloppy, sloppy work by Finell, who has not spent adequate time to absorb what is happening at all. Brews ohare (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light

Jehochman, Nobody is pushing any fringe views at speed of light. You clearly don't have a basic grasp of what this dispute is about, and you are simply pandering to malicious allegations. The dispute is about attempts by some to stifle debate on the implications of the 1983 definition of the metre and how this issue should be recorded in the main article. You don't even know anything about the history of the dispute. I was only involved for a very short time, not much more than two weeks. Your allegation of persistent disruption simply does not hold up. Your allegation of circular arguing is meaningless, especially considering that you don't know what the argument is about. Your allegation of assumption of bad faith is empty, considering that you are incapable of seeing the assumptions of bad faith that are inherent in the malicious allegations that you pander to so readily. I suggest that if you are going to hand out topic bans that you at least examine the facts of the case first.

It's rich of you to claim that I am trying to game the system, when in fact you have already gamed the system by sending one player off the pitch for no justifiable reason at all, and to the advantage of the other side in the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, in my view you are using your privileges in an arbitrary manner without judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, It doesn't worry me that Tim Shuba or Physchim62 come running to the authorities to try and get their opponents sent off. What worries me is your readiness to pander to their desires without any investigation of the facts whatsoever. Just what makes you so sure that Tim Shuba or Physchim62 are right? Your bias is not becoming of someone who holds the administrator tool. David Tombe (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Would both of you stop badgering me, please. You're assuming bad faith of other editors, and ignoring your own faults. I suggest you both take a break from the battle you've been fighting and go edit some non-contentious articles. This is a collaborative project, not a competitive arena. Jehochman Talk 02:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, Is that not a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? What about the assumptions of bad faith on the part of other editors that resulted in your knee-jerk reaction to impose a page ban and then a topic ban on myself? You still haven't even attempted to explain why I have been singled out, bearing in mind that I didn't even edit the main article in question for seven days before you imposed the ban. Your actions were a gross abuse of the administrator tool, and it appears that you don't even feel the need to discuss the matter. David Tombe (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tut, tut. Badgering. Imagine that crime as placed next to arbitrary, unjustifiable, and unjustified ban upon an editor. Why not try to explain these actions? Or, better, just reverse your decision and admit a bad call. Bad calls do happen; backtracking in such cases is not a disgrace, but a virtue. Brews ohare (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Tut, tut yourself. Jehochman did not make a bad call. The views that you and Tombe espouse, despite the differences in your respective positions, is WP:FRINGE physics, which is Wikipedia's polite, civil term. The more common term used in the real world for behaviour like yours is discussed here. Please stop haranguing everyone else who disagrees with you and let it be. —Finell (Talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jehochman. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Under the heading Proposed solution —Finell (Talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ANB

You;ve more experience there than I--how do I reopen a case from a recent archive.? I'll look here. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the case, or some keywords to search for? Jehochman Talk 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The thread is the one at [22]. (Archive 561, no.32) It was never actually closed, and it seems to have been moved there while there were still comments from day to day (I want to reply to Protonk, and then as the discussion continues, add other examples.) DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I recommend you copy (not move) the thread from the archive back to the board, note what you've done and inform the participants that you'd like to finish the prematurely archived discussion that was never closed. It's best not to remove from the archive because if somebody linked to the archive, that link might break. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I am being shut out of the Sustainability article. It is almost like an over control thing with the most active editors (usually two or three people with almost identical pov) their team [23]Recently user Sunray changed a heading into a derogatory statement [24] about my article concerns. Everytime I make a comment or try to edit they call me disruptive... all comments start and finish with that accusation on the talk page, over use is a personal attack now I believe, or baiting and taunting. Granitethighs also does this, and is generally name calling and insulting [25] - You remember when I asked for help or advice on this before and they are not following what was agreed on in my opinion [26] I am a diligent and productive editor that tries to follow guidelines and am not into drama, but this is straining me because no matter how simple or direct an edit I make on the page... they delete and castigate it on the discussion page and call me disruptive for things like this??, [27]

What do you think? The team claims it is trying to F.A. the article but that was recently changed to trying to G.A. it. They have had an unfriendly closed circle editing the article in a team tandem now for over a year starting around here [28] There also is an Admin editor that comes out of the blue... never works on the article, to castigate me Ohana United... who is in the sign-up also [29] I have made a lot of edits to the article in general as to information in the past. I see nothing wrong with trying to improve the article with things like this [30] - I know they can control as in edit as a team if they like but I do believe that 3 or 4 people are negatively controlling content. Recently another editor made some of my changes, and they stuck in the Transition section. I do try to play nice with others, and this is the only article where I am being brick walled. What do you think, and any suggestions? I am going to post this on the discussion page of the article as a link. I wish there where a guideline about people with similar pov not forming teams on Wikipedia. I did do large sections in the article with sourcing and reffing previously, but it is almost impossible lately for any edits of mine to stick. skip sievert (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your commentary, I think there is plenty you can do to resolve problems before we need to look into the behavior of others. You should avoid accusing a group of editors of being a "team". Even if that is the case, making the accusation will not win you friends. Instead, you need to politely address article content and use dispute resolution as appropriate. If there is a team attempting to own the article, that will become apparent. It is better to let somebody uninvolved make that determination. They can make the accusation and back it up with evidence. As an uninvolved opinion, they will not suffer the same problems that you experience now. Regards, Jehochman Talk 00:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I should avoid calling a group of editors a team?...[31]. I have politely argued content. I am not interested in winning friends on Wikipedia, or enemies. Obviously you are not interested in getting involved. So be it. skip sievert (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
He did get involved. He took the time to give you some very good advice. If you follow it, you will be better off. If you disregard it, that is your choice. Wikipedia operates by consensus of editors acting within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not by an administrator imposing your view, or your opponent's view, on an article. —Finell (Talk) 09:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a public project to improve the quality of the article! That should be encouraged. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah right go ahead and encourage them! But... there is something wrong when 3 or 4 people are bonded together like meat puppets to enforce a pov on an article, and continually assault people as being disruptive that disagree with them. That is the fate of the article for over a year. Thanks for the two cents and change Finell, but I am not trying to impose anything let along my opinion, and since you are not involved in the article and probably know nothing about what is going on thanks again for the pointless interjection!
This type of editing makes me almost sick Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, and that is the approach the 'self referred' to group team takes and uses against other comers on the article. Just forget that this is the only article on Wikipedia that I am involved with as to a dynamic like this, and just forget that recently I helped to rewrite as to reorganize the History of economics article was had probably the most contentious group of people and disparate viewpoints that could be imagined... and it took several weeks and came out very nice, and now is stable. skip sievert (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Procedure for Topic Bans

Jehochman, I'm still waiting for you to justify the topic ban that you imposed on me. Nobody in the management has yet confirmed that your actions, which were contrary to the procedures for topic bans, were lawful. I'd be grateful if you could begin by showing me the best example of an edit that I made which in any way justified a topic ban. David Tombe (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're asking the same question repeatedly, and ignoring the answers that are already available to you here and here. There have been community discussions (see first link) and my sense of the consensus is that you should remain topic banned. You are welcome to lodge appeals elsewhere. I'm afraid your appeals to me are unlikely to convince me to change my decision. Jehochman Talk 02:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, The links that you provided give absolutely no justification for a topic ban. All they do is show a few comments from biased editors, followed by your knee-jerk reaction. I want to see a specific edit that I have made that justifies an indefinite topic ban. All I was doing was stating my opinions on the talk page at speed of light. That is hardly a basis for for an indefinite topic ban. And since when has a topic ban prevented somebody from making comments at AN/I in opposition of somebody else getting a similar unfair topic ban imposed on them? Your removal of my opposition comments at AN/I regarding Brews's topic ban is another example of your attempts to game the consensus.

I have looked at the rules and you are obliged to state your reasons for instigating this topic ban. So far you have given no reasons that stand up. Let's see the single best example of an edit that I have made on the talk page that warrants a topic ban. I'm sure that you won't be able to find one. I do not intend to let this issue drop. This is an important case in deciding whether wikipedia operates its rules and regulations even handedly. David Tombe (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The tone of your comments reinforces my decision. I do not entertain wikilawyering on my talk page. Please go some place else with your appeals. Jehochman Talk 03:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, Your bias is appalling. You didn't even deal with Brews's case in the same manner that you dealt with my case. I can only assume that your lack of ability to produce a single edit that warrants your actions means that you didn't have a reason. David Tombe (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits have already been cited. I see no reason to cite them again when I've already provided you with links to the relevant discussions. Look, this discussion between you and I does not seem productive. If you'd like to appeal your topic ban, you can start by talking with an administrator, or by posting to WP:AN requesting a review. The topic ban isn't meant to last forever, just until there's a common understanding how to avoid disruption of that article, its talk page, and associated processes. Jehochman Talk 03:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Jehochman, Now I'm seeing some signs of reasonableness. The topic ban wasn't meant to last forever. Ironically, I had virtually finished making my point on the talk page when you instigated the ban. I don't want to be involved in a prolonged dispute at speed of light, but I didn't like the way everybody was ganging up against Brews on an issue on which I knew he was correct. I want to go back into the debate again and make a few points to help bring about a long term settlement of the dispute. You can see that other editors have also backed up Brews since you first instigated the topic ban on me David Tombe (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can we take this up tomorrow? I am hopeful that matters with Brews are about to be resolved. If everybody can agree that the conflict is finished, I would consider lifting the ban, because it would no longer be needed. Jehochman Talk 03:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks. What is needed is some kind of statement of position from all parties concerned in the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Either they come to an agreement now, or they agree to cooperate in mediation. If not, I will dig through the history again, or perhaps ask another administrator to do so in order to figure out what steps may be needed to restore collaborative editing. Jehochman Talk 03:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'll agree to co-operate in mediation. I think that some kind of arbitrator with a physics background needs to be appointed to examine brief statements of position from the main parties in the dispute. I would like to suggest either user:Cardamon or user:David J Wilson, depending of course on their own consent, because they have both indicated an ability to understand controversial issues in physics. I suggest that when an arbitrator is appointed, that each party in the dispute submits a statement and then retires from the articles and talk pages until a verdict is reached. Questions can of course be asked regarding the verdict, but I would suggest that in the interests of goodwill that all parties should allow the arbitrators to write the article based on their own judgements of the submissions, and that all the other parties should refrain from further involvement on the pages in question for a period of six months. And in the event of any further escalation following that stage, that the page should be fully protected in the state that it was in when the arbitrators had completed it.

If such a system of mediation proves to work, it can then be used as a model for future disputes on physics articles, or indeed for other kinds of articles too. I'm not so sure however if it would work for politically sensitive articles relating to actual ongoing regional conflicts, because in those cases, there would be a much greater problem as regards agreeing on a neutral arbitrator. In the case of this particular dispute, I imagine that there will be no problem in finding a physics trained neutral arbitrator that is acceptable to the main parties in the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I "strongly object" to dropping the topic ban of Brews ohare, for reasons I posted to the discussion at AN/I. Count Iblis can discuss article content with Brews if he wants to and Count Iblis can bring whatever he deems worthwhile to the article or the talk page. That does not address Brews's disruptive behavior. Tim Shuba has also raised several additional specific examples (with diffs) of Brews' uncivil behavior and disruptive editing at AN/I. I'm sorry to keep dropping this back onto your plate. —Finell (Talk) 07:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I'm dealing with Jehochman here in relation to my own topic ban. Is it not possible for me to present a proposal for resolution to an administrator without you intervening? You have already made your views on Brews ohare clear at AN/I. Meanwhile I'm trying to negotiate a wider and more long term settlement to this issue, that won't involve any topic bans for any of the parties. I want to see the article written coherently by competent physicists who are neutral in this dispute. I have suggested two names above, and that they work out a settlement based on written submissions from the disputing parties. That will ensure an end to all the arguing. There is no point in continuing on the talk page at speed of light in the current atmosphere because it has largely degenerated into a pie throwing contest. It's time for you to move on and drop your animosity towards Brews ohare. David Tombe (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed of light

I presume you left Hogbin out of the involved parties in error? Abtract (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration at Speed of light

I believe you omitted from the list of involved parties the following: User talk:Martin Hogbin; User talk:Dicklyon; User talk:Headbomb Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You are hereby invited and permitted to add them to the list and issue notifications to them. You my cite my comment here if anybody challenges you. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
But why did you omit them; if in error (surely it couldn't have been deliberate?) then would it not be better if you corrected your error? Abtract (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Abtract (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no interest in adding these parties; I brought it up as a matter of courtesy. Brews ohare (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman: Since the 2 editors who complained that you omitted 3 other involved editors from the list of involved parties, but didn't add them themselves, I added them. —Finell (Talk) 03:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lifting of the Topic Ban

Jehochman, Thanks very much for your decision to lift the topic ban, which I assume includes the original pagebans as well. I'm most grateful for that. I'd also be much obliged if you could please remove my name from the index at the bottom of this page [32]. I hope that my suggestion for a resolution of the dispute is considered because it would let all sides of the hook without any loss of face, as well as giving them a break, and I am confident that Steve Byrnes would write a good balanced article. Of course, Steve may not want to undertake the task, in which case I'm sure that there will be other suitable editors who are knowledgeable in physics, and who have not be partisan in this dispute at speed of light. David Tombe (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Knights Templar Discussion page

Hi Jehochman

You were kind enough to step in before when Paulmagoo started using the Scottish Knights Templar Discussion page as his bulletin board [33]. Now he has published a huge and some might think inflammatory book review on the page, which should really be removed. Also it seems likely that using an anonymous IP he has been engaged in an edit war with other editors, and having been blocked for 24 hrs has changed IP. Could you take a look please?

Thanks --Kyndinos (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've given them a final warning. Jehochman Talk 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for looking in on the talk page. Unfortunately an anonymous IP has undone your edit. I've traced the routes of all the the anonymous IP edits, they're all BT, all to Edinburgh, Scotland, and as the Paulmagoo user page gives an address @btinternet, it points to all this activity by the same person all the time. Very confrontational. --Kyndinos (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean to protect the Scottish Knights Templar Discussion? It is unprotected at the moment and an anonymous IP vandalized it yesterday. --Kyndinos (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A friendly note

I'm informing you that I sent a letter to the Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. Regarding your Administrator rights. I requested that your Administrator rights be reviewed and removed do to misuse. I sent my letter to P.O. Box 78350, San Francisco, California. I also called them at 1.415.839.6885. I also sent a long e mail to Jimmy Wales. I expand how you are abusing your Administrator rights. I don't want to say too much on site as it will just educate you.

I highly recommend not removing this message, because Wikipedia Foundation ask me to notified you regarding this matter. If you delete this message and block me, It will show that you indeed have been misuse your Administrator rights. --71.105.195.182 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As the IP's contribs show, this is a single purpose non-account for sending these warnings to admins. VirtualSteve got two of them and appears to know who the sender is. I wonder if the letters are signed with the IP address. —Finell (Talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
it's Michael93555 (talk · contribs) trolling the admins that dealt with, blocked and declined unblock requests on his recent sockpuppet D climacus (talk · contribs). I reverted his other notices as he is a banned user avoiding his ban but as someone has already replied here, I'll leave it to Jehochman. This is obviously just trolling, though, and I wouldn't give it a second thought. As someone who has had a bit to do with the Foundation, I know the Foundation does not get involved in this sort of thing and leaves disputes and admin issues up to the local communities. Even if there is an abusive admin, the Foundation won't get involved and will just leave it up to the Arbitration Committee to review and desysop, if appropriate. If Michael thinks he has a case to make with regard to his sock being blocked, he will need to take it up through the usual means, either through the ArbCom or by appealing to the community in a legit way that complies with the block and ban policies. Besides the fact that his sock was blocked in accord with policy and via an ANI discussion, and there was absolutely nothing abusive or underhand about it at all. His notice is just trolling, game playing and a waste of time. Sarah 02:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

D Tombe is violating his ban.

Take a stroll on the speed of light talk page and you'll his that he's back. Unless he's only banned from the article itself and not the talk page.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I lifted the ban, pending arbitration. It would be unwise for him to demonstrate tendentiousness while arbitration is ongoing. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well then nevermind. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Scary

If it amuses you to know this, by this measure you garner 13.9% as much attention as Jimbo.[34] Let's take that table next to the telescreen and enjoy lunch. Durova315 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

About fifty percent more people are watching me than User:Carcharoth, but (s)he got mentioned on TV. *pout*. Your 389 stalkers beat my 264, Elonka's 296, Thatcher's 299, Lar's 304, Rlevse's 309, Newyorkbrad's 350 and Bishonen's 359. SlimVirgin has 622. Can you find any higher besides Mr. Wales? Jehochman Talk 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Raul654 and JzG both have over 500. SV seems to be highest as far as anyone has figured out. Btw, you're mentioned on today's blog.[35] Durova315 05:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Blushes* I love blog coverage. I wonder what're the levels of attention given to various project pages as a fraction of ANI. I assume ANI to be the most watched page on WP. Jehochman Talk 11:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Dunno. It seemed funnier to compare to Jimbo. Also less tendency to taint the people who get high numbers, since some of the result appears related to drama but other factors also apply. YellowMonkey and Jdelanoy both get high cj ratings while being low key productive people. Durova315 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't compare people to ANI. But we can compare project pages to ANI. Jehochman Talk 00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know ...

I don't know if you are aware of it, but Brews left several posts announcing that he is no longer participating in Wikipedia[36][37][38][39]. I didn't originate this idea or raise it with him out of the blue, and I certainly didn't mean to pressure him. I was trying help him to make a graceful exit, since he had already decided to leave. In my first interactions with Brews in August, by which time everyone else was already fed up with him, I reached out to him and tried to help him get along better with the other editors and to understand what they were trying to explain to him. He dismissed me just as he has dismissed everyone else. —Finell (Talk) 06:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Compromised account

Regarding User:Tymek, can you give me more details? I've known him on Wiki for years, and met him off Wiki once, he has always been a constructive editor. How was his account compromised? Did somebody hack it? Can this be fixed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2009 flu pandemic

The article 2009 flu pandemic you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:2009 flu pandemic for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing ANI

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you closed the ANI on Otterathome? I saw you linked to WP:DR, but I saw nothing there that indicated the length of a thread had anything to do with whether it should be closed or not. Also, the thread was currently in progress (it is an ongoing and complicated issue), and another admin, User:SarekOfVulcan, recently said that the thread "wasn't ripe for closing yet" [40] Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not a chatroom. It's a place to request administrative help with a problem. The page exceeded 600kb, which is way too huge. I removed the oldest and largest threads (mostly) to get the page back down to a manageable size. If you want to continue the discussion, merely link to the archive and start a new section with a brief summary of what administrative action you're seeking. Regards, Jehochman Talk 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason why it was so long is because no admins were responding to it at all. A number of users gave evidence to how much trouble Otter has been causing but it seemed like no one was noticing. How did no one see the problem? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Once a thread gets to a certain length, especially if it looks like bickering rather than concisely presented evidence, administrators won't want to waste their time. Jehochman Talk 17:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tymek

Hi, any news about the status of User:Tymek's account? are you aware if checkusers have cleared him or something? It seems pretty certain from later e-mails I've got from his account that he is again himself, so I would tend to unblock him (and let the arbs deal with the rest), but I wouldn't want to do that if any checkusering or similar investigation is still ongoing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I am taking no action. It's up to the checkusers or arbitrators to decide what to do. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you know which checkuser(s) have been involved with the case? I'm not sure if the Arbs have him on their radar at all at the moment – he wasn't even listed as a party to the new case, last time I looked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to convince people that you are uninvolved, you have to do a better job of being indifferent! Jehochman Talk 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
????!? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
[41] Jehochman Talk 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. But since I was one of those who set the stone rolling by contacting Arbcom, I can't help feeling I still have a certain responsibility, as an uninvolved administrator, to see that the people involved get treated fairly. Call it a sense of basic human decency? So, would you perhaps now be so kind and answer my simple factual question: you said you contacted several checkusers; I haven't seen that any checkusers have commented on the compromised account issue; so who can I contact to see if this has been taken care of? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not giving out any information regarding this case, other than what I choose to post. Jehochman Talk 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay then, seeing your stance of irrational obstructionism vis-a-vis a fellow administrator, and in the absence of any visible activity from the checkusers, I'll have to take this into my own hands and will unblock the guy so he can take part in the arbcom case. Your behaviour is an utter mystery to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow! You're a party to that case. You can't use tools on another party to that matter. Please revert yourself immediately.

You should never revert another administrator without their agreement, or a community discussion. You're badly wrong on two counts. Just fix it quickly before somebody raises a stink.

Wow. Jehochman Talk 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am precisely as uninvolved in this matter as you, or more so. As for undoing another admin's action, you are wrong about the need for a community discussion – for an unblock, I just need to consult with the blocking administrator, which I tried to do but failed, because you refused to give me any meaningful relevant information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You did not say anything like, "Hello, Jonathan, do you mind if I unblock this account you blocked?". It did not cross my mind that you would do that. Had you said so I'd have said "No" and suggested (1) running down a checkuser first, and (2) that I'd rather unblock myself or have the Checkuser do the unblock. It looks very bad for named parties to use tools on other named parties. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not making clearer from the outset that I was acting in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. (Well, actually, I did mention my considering an unblock, right in my first posting, which is just above here, but be that as it may.) Anyway, conversely, it had never crossed my mind for a moment that anybody with any knowledge of this field of disputes would consider me anything but a neutral observer. You said in your block message that anybody considering unblocking shouldn't act "without contacting me, a checkuser or an arbitrator first" – and that was precisely what I was trying to do, not more and not less, in response to a regular unblock request I had received. In doing so, I was not requesting any privileged information from you, but merely the simple piece of information of which checkuser to contact further. – As for my status, you are wrong in assuming that being listed as an Arbcom "party" automatically translates into being "involved" in the sense of the admin policy. It is quite common for people to be listed merely in their role as neutral filing parties, or as admins who have previously taken some enforcement action in the area, and such admins are perfectly free to continue doing so while the case is ongoing (as, for instance, was done by User:Horologium in our recent Macedonia case, where he continued taking care of the contentious page protections, with explicit encouragement from the Arbitrators.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, everything is clear now. Please understand that a variety of folks were pressuring me, and I did not understand that you were uninvolved. It's always been my habit not to use tools in any matter after ArbCom lists or accepts my name as an involved party. Better safe than sorry. We have no shortage of admins around here. You did mention unblocking, but your note was ambiguous ("tend to unblock" rather than "going to unblock"). Jehochman Talk 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear talk page watchers (Yes, You!)

I need help with the suggestions at Talk:2009 flu pandemic/GA1. It doesn't matter whether you're motivated by sympathy or a desire to prove your wiki-fu is stronger than mine. Have at it! Jehochman Talk 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Que-king myself...

Um... "We have somebody who claimed to me that they were a hacker, but that person could have been lying. A hacker is somebody capable of dishonesty." So... You think they were lying about being a hacker, on the basis that hackers habitually engage in dishonesty? Tell me, do you dine upon the chicken or the egg first? Irma Puzzled Sysop (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, my view of human nature is excessively Hobbesian, but I have yet to meet a human being incapable of dishonesty... :P MastCell Talk 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Principle requested

As you can see, we generally like the one principle you've posted in the Speed of Light case. I have a request for a followup: a principle that captures and clarifies the current state of administrator-imposed topic bans.

The arbitrators have talked about this in the past, but previous cases where it's come up have been ugly for other reasons (think of the WMC-Abd case). My impression is that we generally support the practice as long as there are procedural safeguards (like appealing to ANI). Logically, since admins can block users completely, they should have the ability to block them from particular trouble areas. I think the encyclopedia would be much better off if this happened more routinely.

Therefore, I hope that you could write a principle or two about the state of admin/community topic bans. I'm thinking of a including a proposal encouraging the community to expand the practice and policy behind admin/community topic bans. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've posted something. If an individual administrator is going to act, we should have a technical mechanism, and the boundaries should be well-defined. Our topic bans are sufficiently nebulous that without strong demonstrated consensus, it is a practical impossibility for an individual administrator to place one. Jehochman Talk 15:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi Jehochman. Earlier I had a taken a source to the WP:RS board about a 'BBC documentary and Alaya Rahm trial'. It was discussed for a week by 4 independent wikipedians and in the end it was concluded that 'the 0ld BBC documentary' can either be removed as the following trial made it questionable (or) if left in the article the other secondary source 'The Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain' which covers the 'Alaya Rahm trial' must also be included.

In the conclusion the source referred by Priyanath is the 'Daily Pioneer' article.

  • New developments:

There are some editors and other activists who don't want to follow the earlierWP:RS recommendation and took it to the WP:RS board again and did not present case / facts correctly. There was not even a mention about the 'Alaya Rahm trial' which is mainly covered in the 'The Daily Pioneer' article.

will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

My comment took a few minutes to compose and crossed paths with your archiving. Surprised I didn't get an edit conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing! Jehochman Talk 10:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Surprised at the drama bomb I inadertedly set off. I wasn't out to get Giano blocked, just commenting on the whole picture, but I can't disagree with the block, I'm afraid. It just wasn't nice, and Giano either knows better or is not capable of learning better. Oh well. We will survive.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm a pragmatist. The block was a bad decision because it wastes a lot of time for no benefit. Giano will not back down, so why create the huge fuss? If you look at my logs, you'll see I almost never perform any sort of block unless the user has been so naughty they deserve an indef. Blocks on good faith users are bad business. Jehochman Talk 12:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Not for feuding"

Resolved

I think I known what your post at User_talk:Mattisse#Wikipedia_is_not_for_feuding refers to, but I could be wrong - as others could also be. It might be better to post specifics, preferably diffs, at User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Then we can see what Mattisse may have done and how much of that she may have done may be justifiable or not. Sorry for the obscure phrasing, but I'm just guessing at what is the issue - please clarify. --Philcha (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs demonstrating this "feud", or alternatively strike such comments? I really have not seem any evidence of this rather damning accusation. Chillum 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't feign ignorance on my talk page. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse. Notice that Mattisse has had a history of unproductive interactions with Giano. Why is she now appearing at an ANI thread to lobby for blocking Giano? That's bad form. You, Chillum, also have a history of conflict with Giano. It would be great if you folks would stop battling and go write articles instead. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not feigning anything. Please assume good faith. I will review the one link you gave me and look for this evidence of a feud when I have time. As for your accusation regarding me, would you please provide diffs or stike it? Really, you should be providing evidence with your accusations, not making them and then only providing evidence when asked. When digging up these diffs please keep in mind WP:ADMIN which says "Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace".
I will also say that personal attacks drive off many good contributors every day and that we block people for making personal attacks every day. Enabling the behavior of attacking other editors by making accusations of corruption for what is really just a routine application of policy is not helpful to our project. The WP:NPA policy also makes it clear that "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians", the idea that a special standard should be applied to Giano is against community consensus and policy. If you wish to propose changes to either of these policies I will gladly participate in the debate. Chillum 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Chillum, you're comments while perhaps well-intentioned, come across to me as argumentative and badgering. I don't like it. You don't need to lecture me on policy. A good essay to read is WP:SPADE. Please don't comment here again until you have had a chance to read the link I provided. Jehochman Talk 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Does that link provide also substantiate the claims you made against me? If you don't want people coming to your talk page asking for evidence then don't make accusations. Chillum 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Can't follow your logic. You came here, commented, and I replied. You then challenged my reply. That's moderately pugnacious. Perhaps you should just go edit an article and stop posting here. If you do, I will certainly stop replying! Regards, Jehochman Talk 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I am terribly sorry, I have communicated poorly. I was referring to User_talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia_is_not_for_feuding, not Mattisse. I read the thread title and assumed it was the same topic. I did not know there were more than one person being attributed to this feud. I see now we have been talking cross purposes and that this is the result of my lack of clarity.
It was not really my intention to challenge your reply but rather to seek clarification regarding your comment about me. I still don't know what you mean by "You, Chillum, also have a history of conflict with Giano". My past interaction with this user has been solely in the form of enforcing policy as an administrator, something that policy makes clear does not exclude me. If there is something I am forgetting please point it out. To be honest any admin active over the last few years, including yourself, has some level of involvement with Giano, so we should really stick to what the admin policy considers to be "involvement".
I am not trying to be a dick(or even a little pugnacious), I am however trying to make clear what is being said about who and for what reasons. I am sorry that I am being made to feel unwelcome in discussing the things you have said over the last day or so. I don't think I am being out of line making a polite request for clarification on these things, I will give you some time. Nothing personal, peace. Chillum 23:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you focus less on actions "solely in the form of enforcing policy as an administrator" and more on resolving disputes and helping good faith editors improve the encyclopedia by treating them respectfully and collegially. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Resolved

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Your history of interacting with many of these same individuals on fringe and a pattern of them verifying and backing up various claims of yours makes you one of the last people who would have the right to impose such sanctions. I have added you to the ArbCom case because your actions stepped over the line. Your unwillingness to see that ArbCom already had quite a bit of evidence showing that they were acting inappropriately is further troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry you don't see the error of your ways. This sort of pugnacious confrontation, filing an arbitration request without even discussing the dispute first, is exactly why you were sanctioned. Jehochman Talk 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Without discussing the dispute? So, three ANI threads, multiple talk pages, and constant interaction with Arbitrators over the matter is not discussing the dispute? Your relationship with the accused along with the above shows that your judgment is compromised. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Who is the accused? What relationship? Hang on a moment and explain things in simple terms from basic principals so I know what you're talking about. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you bother to read the ArbCom case at all? Or anything at ANI before responding? Since Folantin and Dbachmann were edit warring blanking the Persian Empire page which even Wizardman told them was inappropriate, they have been operating in constantly bullying, meat puppeting, and other inappropriate actions towards myself on multiple pages. However, there is a clear history of them doing such on both RS and Fringe noticeboard. One of these people is Akhilleus, a friend of yours who you have worked with quite often. His name is listed at the ANI page. The claim that -I- am bullying them is from the fact that I submitted evidence of such to various Arbitrators and have been dragging my feet on the matter because I have been focusing on the end of the WikiCup and I did not want to be dragged into a case. However, -you- with your close relationship of Akhilleus and your threat of blocks makes it so I cannot do anything but enter into a case. You want to use your admin authority to claim that I am bullying them when it is clear that it is the other way around, fine. But I am tired of admin acting in such a way and thinking that they can operate like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This messy situation would become a bit less messy, Jehochman, if you'd withdraw the asserted restriction and submit the to the community in the form of a proposal. Durova320 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is still an intimidation factor which falls under problematic behavior that the case is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Durova, the matter is being discussed elsewhere. Let's keep the conversation together. Jehochman Talk 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It's all in one place at RFAR now, so that request is moot at this point. Durova320 01:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus

In my evidence I point out that Piotrus has tried to present himself as an uninvolved adminstrator[42] in cases where he actually isn't. This seems especially obvious in the light of the mailing list evidence -- how can he be uninvolved in threads about his fellow team members? Since I've used your diff of warning in my evidence, I think it would be fair if you would comment personally as well. Offliner (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your evidence can stand on its own without my additions. Wow, that was a fairly intrepid warning I issued. Jehochman Talk 07:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Actions

Resolved

Jehochman, I've seen you on 2 occasions decide someone needs a santion and have unilaterally placed them under some sanction. Under what authority are you allowed to do this without community support? I mean no disrespect but I find it odd you are the only one I've seen issuing content bans without consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, as I am not going to respond by guessing what two incidents you're talking about. It seems like you're repeating something you heard without checking the facts carefully. Jehochman Talk 06:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. I witnessed both. User:David Tombe speed of light. and now User:Ottava Rima civility. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
[[43]] [[44]]. those are the two specific times I've seen you act without a consensus to my knowledge.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom is looking into boh matters. Why don't you post concerns there? I dislike fragmenting a conversation to different pages. Jehochman Talk 06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok.....But you did these before Arbcom handed these down. I'm not comenting on their actions right now.....Specifically I would like to see the policy that gives you authority to this. I am unaware of any policy, however if there is I would gldaly apologize.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
A subtle point: Wikipedia policy is descriptive, not normative. We write down how things work, not things work the way we write them down. Additionally, administrators have broad authorization to do that which is reasonable and necessary to prevent disruption. In a situation where I could block somebody completely, it is logical that I should be able to give them a lesser sanction, such as a pageban, if leniency is in the best interests of the project. Jehochman Talk 07:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologogize but I will have to bring this to a wider view as I still find the explanation to be lacking. Again I mean this in no offense but to be able to do this without a consesus goes against ikipedia core policies as a collaborative project. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I have opened this discussion regarding this matter.[[45]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for striking your comment about my block log. It appears you do have authority subject to consensus when needed. I still feel strongly it sets a dangerous precedent as it would be too easy to sanction someone for disagreeing with you (not you personally). I apologize for any inconvienence. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Re:Gross violations of ethics

Considering that I've been already desysoped, I cannot really resign, can I? I am willing to discuss whether I abused or not my admin powers with the Committee - or with anybody else who can maintain a civil and constructive attitude, acknowledge my mistakes, apologize for them and try to mend whatever harm was done (if any). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand how the mailing list could have spun out of control. It's very easy to go along with a group and unwittingly cross lines. I know you mean well for Wikipedia and are only trying to help. Your best bet is to express realization that the list activities were improper, agree to a removal of sysop access (right now it's just temporary), ask to be forgiven for mistakes, and promise to be very mindful of the lessons learned. If you do something like that, you have my word that I will consider there to be no dispute between us going forward. Jehochman Talk 17:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I do appreciate still seeing some good faith somewhere :) I don't know where there is a place I can really agree or disagree with the removal of my sysop access. While I don't think I have abused admin tools at any point (and I did ask several times in the ongoing discussions for people to point to me if I am wrong here), a lot of discussion seems to be centered on my commenting as uninvolved admin in the AE threads around June/July. At that point I was seeing uninvolvement as not being involved in editing particular articles and/or the level of antipathy (but not sympathy) towards certain users; in retrospective it was a bit naive, as the level of sympathy towards certain users also bias one judgment. I have however agreed to comment in the uninvolved section, and I don't think I forgot about it in my (few) comments at AE since, didn't I? I am certainly willing to go on the record and say that while I might have been offended at your critique than, now I think with regards to me being involved or not you were right and I was wrong. Is there anything else, admin wise, that you'd like to discuss? I am quite open to civil discussion and critique; unfortunately a lot of people commenting at the case seem to be in the pitchfork mode... :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you could post what you just said here over at the proposed decision talk page. You could say that you will submit to RFA again at a later time if you want to get your sysop access back. I am sorry people are coming with pitchforks and torches. Part of their anger is motivated by repeated denials and statements that appear to be evasive. If you do something like what I'm suggesting, results for you will be much better, I am confident. My ancestors were from Kracow. Have you ever been there? Jehochman Talk 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I lived there for 5 years :) Beautiful city, you should visit it sometime, a prime touristic attraction of Poland. At this point I am loathe to make any other comment on the arbcom pages (and where should I make such a comment anyway?), but you are welcome to quote or diff me there. Regarding my sysop status, I think ArbCom will make a decision about it, and if they decide it should be removed, and provide an explanation for their rationale, I will certainly try to learn from their suggestions, and will not ask for it to be returned till I think I did so. I wonder if there is some sort of mentorship for better adminship? Perhaps you'd like to review my admin actions and comment on them? I'd certainly appreciate your advice, and you are already somewhat familiar with the case (and as I mentioned earlier, I am certainly impressed by your handling of the situation so far). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimization

I am curious about the possible inclusion of the Search Engine Relation Chart histogram as being appropriate for "history" for this category.

http://www.bruceclay.com/serc_histogram/histogram.htm

Not that the HISTORY section can use a major "image" about the history of inter-se relationships, but this is the only real chart on the subject and is quite frankly known by everyone.

Also, why is education not a part of this page? Seems that the greatest weakness in any "emerging industry" is education, and that is where the major players do come in. Conferences, Books, classroom courses, right down to SEMPO and certification. Maybe a "SEO Education" section (separate linked Main Article?). SES, SMX, PubCon, ad:Tech, Wiley books (mine of course - April 2009) plus others, top classroom and online courses... not to be sales propaganda, but this is definitely education and education is critical to the future of SEO.

The histogram might be a good thing for Search engine too. Unfortunately, we can't use it unless the owner of the diagram releases it under a suitable copyright. I'm not sure about listing conferences and classes. That would be a spam magnet. What is done with other articles about professions, such as accounting or engineering? Jehochman Talk 23:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Answering my own question...Engineering has a section on licensing and certification. We could have a section about professional credentials and standards I suppose. I recommend composing something on the talk page (talk:search engine optimization) as search engine optimization is a featured article. Anything included there should be from a reliable source and well organized. Jehochman Talk 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is your own personal invitation to look into this

Child of Midnight, in effect, spits on the sidewalk and gets blocked. LuLu of the Lotus Eaters edit wars, violates 3RR, runs down the civility level at the Acorn page in his edit summaries (a pattern of behavior he's followed in the past, at the Barack Obama page, for instance) and none of the admins or editors commenting now at ArbCom were commenting back then. Admins coddle one side and hobble the other. It's as clear as day. Some of these diffs are the final comment on discussions.[46] [47] [48] [49]

Now, don't give me piddling wikilawyerish fine points about how no single admin is required to do everything or how different admins have different standards. The fact is that every admin could see the AN/I thread. The fact is that there is no alternate way of interpreting WP:3RR other than that LuLu violated it. The fact is that when one side was complained about, nothing happened. In a clear case. In the CoM case, less clear, admins fall all over themselves to block, without hesitation. Do you have the nerve to tell me that this doesn't look like galling hypocrisy?

I'm not asking you to take any action. I'm asking you to recognize that there is a problem here. -- Noroton (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Worth looking over.[50] -- Noroton (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2c:

  • When filing reports you need to take care of accuracy. For instance, above, you linked to acorn, not the actual article in question. This creates the appearance that you are playing fast and loose with the evidence. An admin who sees that is less likely to dig in further.
  • You come across as a partisan. Your focus is on tipping the article towards a more conservative viewpoint. LoL seems to be going the other direction. We don't achieve NPOV via a battle of partisans. If instead you focus on an objective like improving the quality grade of the article, and seek outside input from editors across the political spectrum, you are likely to get better results.
  • LoL appears to have issues with ownership of that article. It appears to be badly slanted. Most people don't know about ACORN except for the recent video scandal. My opinion as an editor is that the scandal should be reported in the lead. If I'm looking up ACORN, I probably want to know what's going on with that scandal, and expect to find information near the beginning.
  • You've reported as 3RR violations incidents that are really something else, WP:OWN violations. Admins looking at 3RR situations tend to have blinders on. You need to take the time to document ownership and report extreme cases at the appropriate venue WP:ANI, and for lesser cases start a request for comments on article content.

I hope this advice helps. Jehochman Talk 09:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help much. I responded to your last comment on my talk page in detail, and that addresses the more important aspects, but here's a response to what you said here:
  • I don't see how a simple link problem like Acorn (vs. ACORN, confusingly) can create an appearance of me playing fast and loose with any actual facts. It's a typo-level problem like a grammar mistake. In a clear-cut case, it shouldn't make a difference.
  • If I come across as a partisan it's because anyone complaining about any political faction pushing its POV on an article will come across the same way: The complaint about NPOV will always center around the grievance that one POV is being overemphasized in an article while the opposing POV is underemphasized or ignored. Almost no one who shares the POV being pushed thinks the matter is important enough to complain about. That someone has a personal POV is irrelevant, and it should be irrelevant that someone wants that POV in the article. Since, really, we all do. The only relevant thing is how well the article reflects the state of opinion among the most reliable sources. That's usually a hard question to answer, and if you aren't already interested in the topic, it takes some work to answer it. Unless you're willing to do that work (and who could really blame you for not being willing? Life is short), you (as an outside admin or editor) should be agnostic about who is POV pushing and who isn't. The assumption I'm being partisan -- and that's what it is on your part, because you have no evidence -- is really a way to avoid the nub of my complaint because acknowledging the facts of it is uncomfortable for you. It's uncomfortable because it shows what a problem Wikipedia has with enforcement of behavioral policies. I go into more detail about that in my response to you on my talk page. If you actually look into the two or three edits I made ont he ACORN page and the comment or two I left on the talk page there, IIRC, they may indicate I want one side better represented in the article, but that doesn't indicate POV pushing any more than it indicates a desire for a good NPOV encyclopedia article. You know that to turn a POV passage into an NPOV one you have to lean in the other direction. That's good, nonpartisan editing. So don't assume when you don't know the facts. What isn't partisan and what admins, including you, can do relatviely easily, is not ignore valid complaints about clear behavioral problems such as 3RR and ongoing patterns of incivility. That's the nub of my complaint. And when you do it with one side, enforce policy with the same level of energy with the other side. That didn't happen, which is why I commented at ArbCom. You haven't addressed that, even though it's the center of my complaint.
  • Your third bullet, I agree with, of course. It's pretty common POV editing and the bias there is pretty garden-variety. As I said on my talk page, LuLu doesn't seem to stand out much more than several other editors, but I haven't looked closely. I concentrated on LuLu in my complaint because he was a bit worse than the others and I knew he had a history of the same things. But he doesn't really seem much worse.
  • Your fourth bullet is intriguing. I thought I did just what you suggested I do, in both of the 3RR reports. Clear violations, clearly identified, and showing WP:OWN. I'll review my complaints again when I have time, but I don't get what you find wrong with them. Nothing in WP:3RR indicates a revert needs to be simple or remove information in the immediate preceding edit. In fact, I think it specifically states the opposite, which I quoted at AN/I. I thought WP:OWN was obvious, and violations of edit warring don't need to reach the same volume as 3RR itself. How could I have shown this more effectively in my reports? How am I supposed to know how to do this if I'm not familiar with it already and I'm following what's said in the relevant policies and guidelines? I've seen comments in the past at ANI where editors have been told to go to 3RR/N. Frankly, once I did take it to AN/I it shouldn't matter where I took it to first, should it? It could have been dealt with if admins were willing to do so. Admins at AN/I address the real behavior violations all the time and could have done so here. I don't understand how I made that more difficult or what more I could have done to establish WP:OWN. Really -- how do you go about establishing that in a different way than I did? I'll reread WP:OWN, but my impression is that it's more amorphous than 3RR and that kind of complaint involves asking admins to put in more time looking into it. How do you pick and choose what evidence to put into a WP:OWN complaint? It seems to me that that's a harder thing to prove than 3RR and edit warring. I'd really like your advice on that. -- Noroton (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman/Archive_15&oldid=1143082699"