This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jehochman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
According to your statement on Jimbo's talk page (now hatted), you "have clients". Since you're an administrator here, that's possibly troubling, depending on what you mean.
If you mean that you have clients and only do work for them outside the Wikipedia, not touching any Wikipedia pages related to your client's interests, that's fine (but I'd recommend you should probably be careful to clarify that when you say that you "have clients"). Is that the deal? Or do you do work for clients here, in which case (since you're administrator) I'd be interested in finding out more about that. So what's the deal? (Update: posted by Herostratus (talk), I forgot to sign.)
It's not troubling in the least, except to those who assume bad faith and post faux-polite unsigned comments. I work for a living as a web marketing consultant, 99.9% of which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Yes, I have clients, or else I'd be an irresponsible slacker living in his mother's basement, which would suck hard for me because my mother's house is built on slab. Once in a while I hear about a client having problems on wiki and encourage them not to do things the wrong way, and generally decline to get involved. Wikipedia is a great way to waste time; the potential to make money is very, very poor. JehochmanTalk 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Heh - it's been mentioned that I should pursue admin status some day, despite actually having clients that I do help contribute to Wikipedia ethically, however I think it is just a bad idea alltogether. Especially seeing how much crap Jehochman gets just for being an SEO professional who is an admin but doesn't actually do any significant COI work on Wikipedia. I believe user:Dennis Brown is also a marketing professional? and an admin. CorporateM (Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I need to work up a comedy routine for it so my responses aren't so grouchy. In defense of Wikipedians, all admins get more than their fair share of crap, whether or not they are marketing professionals. I don't feel special in that regard. When people want to give you crap, they find a reason. JehochmanTalk 02:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. Sorry about not signing. I just forgot. Sorry if I came off as falsely polite. I was just trying to be regular polite. I'm happy that you have a good job and a place of your own, those are fine things to have.
So OK, you generally decline to get involved. That's fine. That mostly answers my question. But just, well, you said generally, so I guess occasionally you do get involved? It's just that, in those cases, if it involves actually editing the Wikipedia, you only make edits to talk pages, and declare your interest, right? I'm assuming that that's correct but a confirmation would be a kindness.
My personal opinion is that admins shouldn't be doing client work here, mostly for complicated and subtle reasons involving systems-dynamics issues rather than anything about you personally. However, in looking at your RfA, I see you were asked about this (question 4) and you didn't promise not to engage in SEO and suchlike here for your clients (just not to do it in a spammy, jerkish, abusive, or risky-to-the-client manner), so you're in the clear there, and based on the vote I'd say my belief is highly idiosyncratic (and that vote total should give support to your thoughts of running, CorporateM).
For my part, because I think that admins occupy a special position of trust here and are held to high standards, I think that it would be in the interests of transparency and the overall good of the Wikipedia if you would set a good example by indicating what clients you've done SEO or reputation-management work for here, if any. Can you see your way clear to doing that? Herostratus (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I apologize for having a somewhat scoffing attitude. Editors have sometimes politely asked me if I had a COI on articles where I do not, and as long as they do so politely, I don't mind editors asking for a confirmation as Hero is doing here, in a very reasonable and civil way.
I don't have any thoughts of running - it was just something another editor mentioned. I don't think there is any real concern of abusing admin privileges to serve clients, but it's just a bad idea to be an admin for Wikipedia and also a marketing representative for clients on the same website. It is already complicated enough being a volunteer and a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 16:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of being asked the same question over and over again by every editor who gets the clever idea, "Jehochman is an SEO expert, so he must be fucking Wikipedia. Let me ask him about it." The answer is that I am not doing the bad faith thing you assume I'm doing. My client list is confidential, and subject to confidentiality and no publicity agreements. I don't edit on behalf of clients. I may advise clients how Wikipedia works, once in a great while, and I might tell them how to follow best practices. I may also tell Wikipedia how broken their process is for dealing with businesses that have issues with their coverage in Wikipedia. The whole situation frustrates me greatly. Any editor can come here and accuse me because I've been transparent about my identity, while they hide behind an anonymous username. Herostratus, may I ask, who are you? Who do you work for? And who are your clients? If you think it fair to ask me, why shouldn't I ask you. Awaiting your reply, JehochmanTalk 17:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that Jehochman is sick and tired of all the boring repetitiveness of the clamouring ill-advised masses. I've also "advised" "clients" on how Wikipedia works, how editing pages works, how WP:COI works. Part of the day job of an experienced Wikipedian, right? So, Herostratus, I'm also looking forward to hearing who you are and what you do here, since you're demanding that of others. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Jeh, I think it might help (only a little) if you put some kind of disclaimer on your user page, so people can see without having to ask. I see why you're frustrated - it's annoying for me to. Every POV pusher I encounter jumps on my COI disclosure as a ripe target for winning an argument by making COI accusations, usually with a well-deserved boomerang. But when several vendors have entire networks of aged, non-disclosed COI accounts that purport to be volunteers and the amount of bad behavior out-weighs the good, how can we not expect a certain degree of paranoia and speculation? Certainly it's not fair to you, but it is the only reasonable expectation we can have on a site overrun by spam, promotion and link-bait by the very professional fields we work for. CorporateM (Talk) 12:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
PR professionals are not responsible for the swamp of spam. It's the amateurs. Before your comment I already added a disclaimer to my user page. There used to be one a while ago but I took it down because somebody complained that I was using Wikipedia to advertise my business. When people want to assume bad faith, nothing will satisfy them. JehochmanTalk 13:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I would just put something like "I do not edit on behalf of my clients" or something. My user page just says "If a COI is not disclosed, I do not have one." But meh, personal preference. I do not even disclose my real name, neither alone my place of work. You might be opening yourself up to harassment going that far. Up to you, just a tip. I'm not ABFing or anything at all btw, just trying to be helpful from someone often in a similar position. CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Jehochman, relax.
First of all, let me say that I recognize you're a fine editor (not much familiar with your work, sorry, but that's my impression), and I also know that admins take a lot of flak, it's a tough job and (I assume) one you do well, and one we need filled for the project to run, and thank you for your service in that respect.
On the other hand, we're encyclopediasts not high school girls. We're subject to tough but fair questions at any point. This applies to you and me, but admins especially should be expected to be called to question when it's justified. Heat, kitchen, and all that.
I didn't come from the general assumption that "Jehochman is an SEO expert, so he must be fucking Wikipedia". I didn't know anything about you when I saw that you wrote here that you have clients who are involved with Wikipedia, which is what prompted the question (after I then found out you're a admin).
I don't give out personal info here and don't have to (and a good thing too since WR/WO put out a pretty severe fatwā on me at one point). Neither do you and I think it's not a good idea IMO but your call. If you didn't have any personal info I still would have asked the question, which was based on your statement. I don't have clients though or anything like that.
Fine, OK, you don't edit Wikipedia for clients. (You can't I guess since you don't say who your clients are so there'd be no way to declare COI I suppose.) So that's fine. There's no problem, for the purposes of this discussion.
There's quite a bit of a gulf separating us on various issues, and I suppose that's based party on our experiences here and partly on how we see the world, and there's no use shouting across it. There are some issues on which we could probably usefully engage, some other time. Obviously these are very complicated issues.
I don't mean to be an ill-advised mass and so forth (unless I can be in a Marvel comic: The Ill-Advised Mass vs. The Incredible Hulk), but I'm quite inured to being insulted for asking fair questions and I'm not inclined to stand down. Herostratus (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I've adjusted one of your administrator actions based on this thread. I'm pretty sure I read the situation correctly, but if not, please let me know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
1 day protection is enough on Jimmy's page. The non-logged-in people who are enthusiastic/trolling/etc. will either come back, or won't. Jimmy is the one who has over the years insisted that "IPs" should feel free to edit, after all;-). --SB_Johnny|talk✌ 23:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever people like is fine with me. He can unprotect it any time he wants to, and so could anybody else. It would be interesting to do a study of how many productive IP edits are done on that page versus noise. There is a cost of bad posts; they prevent serious discussion. JehochmanTalk 02:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel that this thread would very much benefit from prompt attention by an admin. Accordingly, I am posting this message on here - I shall do the same for other admins who appear to be currently online. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry for rollbacking your edit at ITN, I am on the phone and pressed the wrong link. Regards Küñall (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries! JehochmanTalk 15:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The way you have been proceeding is unsmart. JehochmanTalk 14:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't much about the copyright rules, and I tend to blunder in that area, but as you know an editor has found startling similarities between the content of an outside website and Jews and Communism. I've asked him to raise the issue with you here and/or the appropriate noticeboard. He is not an expert on copyright either, but he is familiar with the facts here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
That would be very interesting indeed, if true. Whether or not it's a copyvio, it could be plagiarism, and it could be evidence of an off-wiki campaign to insert propaganda into the encyclopedia. JehochmanTalk 18:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. In addition to the evidence in the Jimbo thread, Dave Dial discussed it a bit more on his talk page.Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please go to the relevant editor's talk page for any comments not directed at me. Thank you.
Could you please provide more concrete evidence to support your block or seek a checkuser? I'm quite aware of these two and they arn't working together. You said there is evidence that each of them deserves to be blocked separately. What is that evidence?--v/r - TP 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In the block message of DIREKTOR there are three links. Follow them and read everything. It will take you some time to do the review that I did. Unfortunately, I can't distill it any better than that. There's a lot of material to review.
How are you "quite aware of these two"?
Thirdly, since when has checkuser been able to detect meat puppetry for the purpose of tag team POV pushing? JehochmanTalk 21:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Direktor and Producer have been squabbling with each other for years. Anyone who edits in Eastern European articles are aware of them. They're definely not connected. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. What is the basis of disagreement between the two? JehochmanTalk 21:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So you're proposing that they know each other off Wiki? Do you have any evidence? The two of them have been to ANI uncountable times by POV pushers in the ARBPIA and ARBEE cases, who isn't aware of them and why would that even by a question? WP:ADMINACCT doesn't say that you get to point to long discussions to justify your actions. Provide diffs of specific behavior.--v/r - TP 21:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll assemble some diffs. JehochmanTalk 21:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate it. I have family in town so I might not respond this afternoon but I'll give whatever you provide a good read over before responding tomorrow if I still have any concerns.--v/r - TP 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be as busy as a one-armed paper hanger this evening. As a result, I am going to unblock since I won't have the ability to provide the diffs timely, and in any case recent developments offer hope that the block is no longer useful. Pharos is working on the article, and some of the explanations I've received have reduced my concerns. This is not to say that the editors' behavior is perfect, but that the block might not be necessary, so we can try to do without it. JehochmanTalk 22:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ohh, no one says Direktor is anything resembling perfect :D. I've never edited with him before, but I've handled or observed a lot of the ANI threads about him and his behavior is far from exemplary. But I've never thought he was racist. In my experience, he's always done his best to find scholarly sources and stick to them. This would be a first. I don't know much about Producer other than that sometimes he is a staunch supporter of Direktor and I recall a few other times when they've butted heads. I recall ANI discussing an IBAN for them at one time but a quick ANI search didn't help me find it. In any case, I'm glad this got resolved fairly quickly. Thanks for being flexible and open.--v/r - TP 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in, and excuse my language, but I am NOT a goddamn racist! And I do not appreciate being referred to as one. I've been called a lot of things on this project, but given the circumstances I feel obliged to point out that "communist POV-pusher" holds the first place thus far . -- Director(talk) 22:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We actually have another ongoing thread a Talk:Jews and Communism#Title, though I would understand if your intention was to start the discussion afresh.--Pharos (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"Direktor" continues to revert without any considerations of consensus.--Galassi (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman,
Just wanted to give you a head's up - I pinged you at this thread, where we are discussing the current situation at the Edward Snowden article. I know that in July 2013, you were present on the page when it got heated and that you and another administrator helped to cool things a bit.
We've also spoken briefly about perhaps working to bring the article to GA status. I realize that idea revolved around the DWFB WikiProject, however the article and present atmosphere (as well as, if I may be honest, my ability to enjoy editing at WP) would be greatly improved by a bit of oversight - working as a group to make it a Good Article would serve to bring about a more sane atmosphere as well as benefiting the readers. I didn't begin the GA process in January because I had too much on my plate. I could focus a bit more time on the project now, although probably not more than 4 hours a week. (Hopefully this note hasn't stepped over any boundaries and is not considered canvassing.) Best, petrarchan47tc 23:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, I really don't have the time to take on such a project. Sounded fun at the time;) Thanks, petrarchan47tc 08:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
My talk page is not a battlezone.
I'd value your advice on what course of action to take on Jews and Communism. I'm tempted to simply stop editing wikipedia entirely. I thought perhaps we could make forward progress in either deleting the page or, if that wasn't practical in the short run, removing the worst anti-Semitism. But now that seems unlikely, an admin apparently plans to restore all the statistics about the numbers of Jews in the secret police, and the article seems poised to get worse.
My sentiments too.--Galassi (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Request arbitration. Link to the prior ANI threads and the one on Jimmy's talk page. There is persistent disruptive editing and a caustic atmosphere that causes civilized editors and admins to walk away. JehochmanTalk 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, let Galassi post the request:). I hear they have a cannon over there especially for users who like to serve as edit-warring proxies.
So far I count one editor talking about leaving, and one admin walking away, and that because he was opposed in trying to use his tools and render "judgement" while WP:INVOLVED. And what exactly do you propose the committee arbitrates on? I hope you can say, given how you've repeatedly held ARBCOM as some kind of stick over people's heads. There are some disputes over there, but they're being discussed. As for some sporadic edit-warring, there's far far worse on any number of controversial articles. -- Director(talk) 18:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That's interesting. I will watch the discussion to see how it ends. Not sure I have much to add to it. JehochmanTalk 14:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you direct me to WP policy regarding identifying the religion or "ethnicity" of a BLP? Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure where that's documented. JehochmanTalk 13:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Dear Jehochman, thank you for finally instilling sanity into the out of control arguments surrounding the "Jews & Communism" article that was dragging everyone into the mud. You saved the day at the point you intervened by putting everyone on notice that higher standards of civility and honesty were called for at all times especially when dealing with such sensitive matters. You saw what was happening and you took the correct action. "The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes" and this provably applies to you. Best wishes and thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. JehochmanTalk 02:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Is this even a word, though? On Wikipedia it redirects to mentalism ("its practitioners, known as mentalists, appear to demonstrate highly developed mental or intuitive abilities") - without context, it sounds like the meaning could go either way. --McGeddon (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A paranormalist is somebody who studies the paranormal. It is listed in the Urban Dictionary. JehochmanTalk 12:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Anybody can add anything to Urban Dictionary! Is there a less obscure way to phrase this, so that it's clear to the reader that Pye was interested in the paranormal, rather than claiming to have highly developed mental abilities? I'd have thought the word "paranormal" would drain any sense of authority from "researcher", but maybe "paranormal investigator" would work. --McGeddon (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's go to the article talk page so others can see what we are discussion. JehochmanTalk 13:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
If one wanted to write something for an audience of influential Wikipedians, what might be some appropriate venues? It seems to me that Wikipedians do not much reach research about Wikipedia -- ACM Hypertext, WikiSym -- so that's not right. And while Wikipedians are as likely as anyone to read mainstream press -- NY Times Op Eds, The New Republic, Slate, Huffington Post -- they're not the best place to discuss Wikipedia policy. The Village Pumps or various talk pages, are reasonable places for short assertions and discussion, but the argument I have in mind requires more space than these typically allow. Is there a better place? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian. :-) JehochmanTalk 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Close
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
I will summarize my problems. If you want evidence, then I will put it on a noticeboard, because you can find it here.
He voted in an offensive manner without a reason.
He insisted on being offensive with a reversion.
He deleted my first warning from hiz old messajez.
One of his friends insisted on hiz offense with a reversion.
He referred me to a guideline that does not tell me to do anything differently from what I did.
He seems to think that deleting warnings is a good idea.
He did not answer my warnings.
Please answer on my talk page. It iz faster that way, because I do not need to poll your page, or even know that you are awake. If I do poll your page, and I am on a different IP#, then I can look closely at colours. Also, I get one piece of spam every three months or so, and it's not because of filters. Bohgosity BumaskiL75.152.119.10 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
More information Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share ...
2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).
Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).
We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Close
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Do not alter my statements like this. If you find something about it hard to understand, ask. Deltahedron (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Please find a clerk if you need help. The clerk will do exactly what I did, by the way. JehochmanTalk 03:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I need no help to tell you that you have no buiness altering my comments. If a clerk wishes to change them, that's another matter. You are not the clerk. Deltahedron (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It's an uncontroversial thing that ArbCom case headings should be left plain and simple. If you feel strongly enough to re-embellish things after I set them right, please proceed. I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to argue it. Cheers. JehochmanTalk 03:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. I noticed a recent edit from you and remembered something I once meant to tell you, but had not. You may remember a related discussion on Jimbo's TP where I entered the discussion: light on background and facts. I spoke to you with the negative sentiments of bias alone. All the while, as I opined, my conscious nagged at me, and conflicted my thoughts. I knew I had seen your user name many times, and I was pretty sure I was always favorably impressed.
Within a month to six weeks after we interacted on Jimbo's TP, I saw your involvement in a few "marquee discussions". Without equivocation, you are a "first class" administrator; one that I fully support. I am glad that you handled the ridicule of our discussion with such courage, and calm strength. Regarding the day on Jimbo's page, when I spoke to you with both knees jerking, I apologize, and stand corrected. Sincerely—John Cline (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I'll admit that had I forgotten about that conversation, but please don't feel sorry, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. JehochmanTalk 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Jehochman. My apology is not for disagreeing, it is for being disagreeable. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please be aware that the boilerplates at the top of Talk:Evolution clearly state that the talkpage is for discussions about improving the article only, and under no circumstances are editors to be permitted to misuse and abuse the talkpage as a soapbox or a forum thread from which to demand that the article be rewritten into religiously inspired anti-science propaganda, as per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM. It's blatantly obvious that User Frank M Martin was not editing in good faith as, in his original screed and only edit, he was using an Appeal to the Majority fallacy to claim that evolution is false because more people allegedly believe in Creationism than in evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This might be true, but a heavy handed response will encourage more Battles. JehochmanTalk 17:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Leaving nonsense like that on the talk page will only encourage more creationist trolling. We have other articles about creationist views on evolution but this article is purely about the science. Never feed the trolls.Charles (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
A gentle approach is commendable, but, unfortunately, I've found the opposite approach more effective: these particular editors, both the misguided and the Saboteurs For Jesus, are determined to use Wikipedia talkpages as a platform to both browbeat other editors into agreeing with them as well as to disseminate anti-science propaganda. I've found out firsthand that such editors are immune to subtle hints, and take all attempts at gentleness as an open invitation to continue their unconstructive editing. The most effective way to prevent talkpages from being misused as an ideological battleground is to delete such threads the moment they pop up, otherwise, these editors will never get the hint.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Just because they are trying to have an ideological battle does not mean you should join the battle because you are right. No, you should reject battle tactics. Leave their stupid comments in place and the replies. I don't like that you support the removal of my comment. Are you suggesting that I'm a troll? JehochmanTalk 19:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested you are a troll.Charles (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Charles was saying "Don't feed the trolls." Furthermore, leaving the creationist and anti-science trolls' comments and the replies in place only encourages other editors to further ignore the boilerplate warnings that clearly state how the talkpages are for discussing improvements to the articles, and are not for forum threads and soapboxes, what with no consequences, and all.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good call on that, although their reaction that their edits are not disruptive should produce some interesting results down the road. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently he or the firm he works for is going to appeal his block. The firm's executive director said, "We've consulted long-time Wikipedia editors, don't believe the blocking will stand, and are going to appeal." GOP firm plans appeal after researcher is blocked by WikipediaJinkinsontalk to me 23:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
He's welcome to appeal by placing a note on his talk page. Anybody can copy it to WP:ANI for a full community discussion. JehochmanTalk 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"I have never been paid to make any edits to any pages. America Rising, the firm that I work for, is not paid by its clients to make edits to Wikipedia. It's not part of our job description. I am just genuinely interested in politics and current events." He's just a curious citizen, yet the executive directory of his advocacy firm is going to appeal his block after consulting "long-time Wikipedia editors". Second Quantization (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
See WP:ROPE. Soon enough this matter will resolve itself one way or the other. JehochmanTalk 17:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Msnicki and I certified it. Please restore. NE Ent 01:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hang on, I was just coming to explain to you in detail why I deleted it. And no, it was not properly certified because your diffs of alleged attempt at dispute resolution were from 2012. You can't point back two years and start an RFC now. Msnicki's diffs were from 2014 and did not appear to be the same dispute. If you want to have an RFC/U you need to make sure you follow the minimum requirements. I have more thoughts on the matter and would be happy to discuss this with you, and if necessary, recover any deleted content which you don't have a copy of in case you want to try again. JehochmanTalk 01:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The dispute is about General user conduct, not simply the specific instance. There is no time requirement in the requirements about how long before an RFC/U the discussion had to take place for it to be valid. NE Ent 01:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read this section carefully Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Minimum_requirements and tell me how your discussion in 2012 and Msnicki's discussion in 2014 could relate to "the same dispute". Could you give me a recent and perhaps egregious example of behavior? If we can find two users who discussed that incident, it would form a proper basis for an RFC/U. Once you've got two people disputing the same issue with the subject, the past pattern of behavior can be presented to show that it's not an isolated incident. I am definitely not saying you can't have an RFC/U, but you need to follow the requirements, and I could help if you wish. JehochmanTalk 01:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think your interpretation is reasonable. The issue is not a specific instance but the long term pattern of behavior. In any event, I'm out of wiki time for awhile, and I'll have to address it when I get more time. NE Ent 02:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In any event, I'd like to help you resolve your concerns about that user. When you get time, if you point me to a recent issue with them that concerns you, I will investigate. Please don't look upon me as an adversary; I'm open to persuasion. JehochmanTalk 02:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The RFC/U that you just sent to the black hole had several recent examples of problematic behavior. Any reason why you can't just look at those? - MrX 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've left notices for Msnicki and DangerousPanda about this discussion and invited them to join us here. JehochmanTalk 01:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If Jehochman is willing to mediate, an informal discussion here on neutral ground would be an excellent idea. Here or a subpage of this talk page. No one is claiming DP is perfect, but it is my opinion that trying to find common ground off the boards is a better first step. This is also in line with the idea of solving problems at the lowest possible level. If it doesn't work, the RFC/U can be restarted. Like Jehochman, I'm happy to userfy the old page at that time if needed. Dennis2¢ 02:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
One of the many reasons why RFC/U is such a horribly useless process is because of the presumption that all user conduct issues orbit around a single dispute. I agree with NE ENT that there is a long term pattern of behavior. Many editors, including myself, have confronted DP about specific issues. Are we so rule-bound that we require that two editors to actually open a discussion of DPs talk page about the entirety of his long term behavior and how it doesn't comport with WP:ADMIN? - MrX 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jehochman: May I supply the required diff? In that same incident I described regarding DP's indefinite block of Barney, NE Ent tried to explain to DP why DP's initial response to me was improper. Here is the exchange. I believe his "Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you" and edit remark, "laughable" is WP:INCIVIL and a violation of WP:IUC and satisfies the letter of our guidelines in the same spirit as your insistence on applying the letter of our guidelines.
There was quite obviously nothing wrong with that statement - Msnicki even dropped by my talkpage to discuss it because she too read something into it that was obviously not there. It was by no means uncivil, contained no personal attacks (indeed, it commented on CONTENT, and not the CONTRIBUTOR), but wholly questioned the LOGIC of her paragraph and personal attacks against me that by her own admission, was based on not-reading the entire situation that led to BtBB's sanctions. Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you the panda ₯’ 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Should you not be willing to reinstate the page, may I request, at minimum, that provide me a copy of my own statement either by userfying it or emailing it to me or by some other means? I put quite a lot of work into that, cognizant of the deadline and in that face of quite a backlog at work and I don't have a copy. I had a good faith expectation that my complaint would get considered and I should have a chance to repost more suitably if I can determine how without having to rewrite from scratch. Msnicki (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
May I add that I think NE Ent did include a link to a diff of DP's rude remarks to me in the section he wrote. Those are the same remarks that NE Ent tried to discuss with DP and was unable to resolve. I think the requirements were met. Msnicki (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I'm willing to reconsider, and I will certainly give you or anybody else a copy of their own statement. How would you and NE Ent feel if I were to refactor the RFC to focus on the issue where you had common concerns? Did NE Ent discuss with DP those rude remarks? An RFC could also include any evidence of past issues. I'd strongly recommend excluding hearsay--such as criticism from ArbCom guides and such. The RFC should focus on diffs of DP's edits that cause concerns. Also, you can't request sanctions via RFCU. You can request that DP behave properly. If he subsequently doesn't, you can then go to ArbCom and request sanctions. I am very concerned that DP should be held accountable if they have done wrong. JehochmanTalk 03:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, NE Ent did attempt to discuss DP's behavior toward me. That's the unhelpful exchange I quoted above in which DP blew him off for his "laughable" concern.
May I propose that the page be reinstated with the understanding that NE Ent will provide a statement similar to what I provided, outlining specifically what he observed on that Barney incident and how he tried unsuccessfully (as shown above) to seek resolution, that he will also add a proper signature in certification section, and that we leave everything else as background?
When I amended my statement, User:Bbb23suggested posting notices for anyone who already endorsed, allowing them to decide if they still wished to endorse, which we could certainly do again. Would that be agreeable? Msnicki (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I am willing to help you both refile it in a correct format. After that I could leave a note for each prior participant. You want to do this right to get a good result. JehochmanTalk 04:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I would very much appreciate your help, as I'm sure NE Ent would as well. I've been to a lot of AfDs and other discussions, but this is completely foreign territory for me. Msnicki (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I withdrew my "Outside view" (via striking) from the Rfc-in-question. If the Rfc is restored, I request my 'striked view' be excluded from the restoration (if possible), thanks:) GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is a re-factored version that just contains the content provided by NE Ent and Msnicki: User:Jehochman/Draft. I've taken out some stuff that was inflammatory, irrelevant or just plain not good evidence (eg Hearsay). Less is often more. It's better to focus on the facts, which can speak for themselves. You are welcome to copy that page, edit, and refile. You'll want to re-sign your statements and check it over. You don't need to follow my advice, but I think you'll find that you get better results if you do. The decision is yours. If you need me to restore any other contents, just let me know and I'll deliver it to you. If you'd like me to notify the editors who commented before, I will. If you'd like me to check it over when you are done and move the RFC/U from the candidate section to the certified section, I will (so long as the minimum requirements are met). I regret the bureaucracy, but this is serious stuff so we should do our best to be fair to all concerned. Sincerely, JehochmanTalk 04:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks:) GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please keep this in mind: The purpose of Wikipedia dispute resolution isn't to get somebody else into trouble; it's to get them out of trouble. JehochmanTalk 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This is very helpful. But why is my account an "outside view" given the instructions, "This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute"? (Obviously, I really do need and appreciate your help navigating this.) Msnicki (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Just remove the word "Outside". You could also say "View by certifier Msnicki". Point being, the section with your certification diffs should be kept short. Your view is a view like anybody else's. NE Ent already took up the space for the filer's view. Additionally, to get more eyeballs to read what you are saying, I suggest you trim it to 500 words, if you can. JehochmanTalk 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I just want to add a comment here (I was pinged for other reasons, actually). I realize things have evolved since the beginning of this topic, but I had the identical reaction to Jehochman. I felt that the RfC/U was fatally flawed. I said as much in my statement. However, I didn't feel comfortable (confident?) deleting it, but I would have endorsed such an action.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, I'd really appreciate your suggestions, too. I'd like to know about the flaws you've spotted so I can understand whether they might be corrected. I think it's clear enough what I experienced and that NE Ent saw and experienced as well in the Barney incident. We're either restricted to one incident or not. If we're restricted to one incident, it doesn't seem fair to complain (as I think some did but I don't remember who) that we're picking a single incident and who knows if it's typical. If it's one incident, I think I have the goods on DP, that his behavior was completely unacceptable and that he made some very poor decisions, then refused to discuss them, contrary to Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct, precisely as NE Ent told him at ANI. But what do I know about how this works, much less how to file my report. Msnicki (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to pop by to simply say I completely agree with Jehochman's deletion, I also agree with Bbb23 in that the entire RFC/U was just flawed and would've had my full support for deletion, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll just say that I'm pleased to review the contents of the draft and make some amendments to my actions - indeed, seeing as those are primarily ancient it's already been done - but will not play "double jeopardy" and accept this being filed a second time whatsoever. I'm truly happy to try and resolve things between Msnicki and myself - I tried, and she went to ANI and unfortunately got stomped by the community, and is angry at me because of that. As such, any concern that was quashed at ANI cannot be brought up in this manner. In terms of the Lecen incident, I cannot have apologized in a more heartfelt manner for my I believe first-ever AE enforcement action. What you're looking for in RFC is for the party to understand their actions, and work to resolve them - that requires BOTH sides to work on the resolution aspects. RFC/U will not bring about a desysop - but those who file/certify and truly fail to try and work things out have truly failed the process the panda ₯’ 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Why was this deleted rather than hatted or struck through? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Because it was a huge mess. And it wasn't properly certified. I'm trying to help the users file a proper page. DP, if you are still watching, I urge you to answer it sincerely if refiled or you can answer here and now on the substance and see if that satisfies Msnicki. JehochmanTalk 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, "double jeopardy" is in play Jehochman - I will not participate in a re-filed RFC because we're not at the point where any RFC is required. I don't think that Msnicki understands that she is required to have an open mind and try to work things out by commenting in the RFC. She has shown no signs of trying to do so before now. She's flat-out saying "desysop" - well, RFC doesn't do that. I know that English isn't my first language, but many of Msnicki's complaints are that she either a) misunderstood the meaning of what I said, or b) she added her own meaning to what I said. So yes, I'm VERY happy to try and resolve the communication issues - but it has to work both ways. Once I see commitment from her to re-read and work with an open mind, I'll re-engage. But shotgun approaches don't work, not does the hit-and-run seen so far. the panda ₯’ 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
DP, Wikipedia is not a court of law, but is very much a bureaucracy. My observation of your demeanor as an admin leads me to believe that you don't have the temperament for the role, a concern was also raised in your RfAs. You do a lot of good work here, but your interpersonal skills need improvement. Your judgement is sometimes questionable, and you sometimes act in haste. I will post a good faith effort to resolve these long term issues on your talk page, with diffs, later. Perhaps a RFC/U will not be necessary.- MrX 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousPanda:, there are concerns about your interactions with other editors. Your best path forward is to listen to them and reply politely. Claiming various procedural defenses (which don't apply here) isn't going to help you resolve things. You should address concerns on the merits. I will do my best to make sure you get fair treatment, that any discussions aren't tainted with irrelevant, inflammatory content. @MrX:, thank you very much for your input. I encourage @Msnicki: and @NE Ent: to join you in one more effort to resolve things via talk page discussion. If that's successful, it would be better for all concerned (less work, less stress). Remember, please try to focus on the facts, avoid rhetoric, and keep comments short so that they can be read easily. JehochmanTalk 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
What's a "procedural defense"? Is that the one where if the case doesn't go your way (and this one clearly wasn't going for the certifiers), you get to delete it completely and start again until it does give the right answer? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no policy that says "When there is some technical error in an administrative discussion, delete the entire thing and blank it from the public record". Please restore it, for that reason alone.
There are several problems with this deletion. You claim it was done for not being certified, yet two editors claim to have certified it. The grounds for this "non certification" are seriously challenged. There was no discussion of your single-handed deletion. There is the issue of "double jeopardy". Much worse than that though is the issue that this RfC clearly was already up and running and was being treated as such by other editors (myself included). What happens to their input? Is it also blanked? Will their contributions be re-added? Are they permitted to re-add their contributions, or will you find a reason to blank them again, until they start giving the right answers? Worst of all though, this is yet another example of the "infallible admins" problem that we are rife with. If there is criticism of an admin, blank it and blank it so firmly that plebian editors can't even see its contents, contributors or that it was even there.
Please restore this. There is no justification for its blanking and it runs directly against open governance here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, Andy, I also was unpleasantly surprised to see the page deleted, but I'm now quite satisfied that Jehochman is trying to be constructive and even-handed and that he intends to be helpful. I thought there was a deadline when I saw that NE Ent had posted the RFCU and requested my certification (we obviously had not discussed or planned this together, which perhaps explains the flaws Jehochman, Bbb23 and others have mentioned) but just this second, it looks like Wikipedia as usual and no deadline again as we re-assess how and what to report. We have time to get this right. Jehochman has already promised to provide a copies of any statements that were deleted to the editors who wrote them. If you want yours, I'm sure he'll give it to you. Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
DP, of course I'd be willing to discuss a resolution. But I need some reason to think there's a zone of agreement. You need to offer me some hope that your behavior will change. In the one case I observed, I tried raising concerns about your management of the Barney incident, at 1, you instantly became personal and insulting. Just so we're clear, here's the entire exchange, taken from Barney's talk page right after he'd started insulted you, too, calling you Bearcat's "pet admin", and you responded by blocking him.
Respectfully, DangerousPanda, I think this was unhelpful and I hope you will reconsider. You should at least have let another uninvolved admin review the situation before ratcheting the sanctions again. There's starting to be an appearance you could be too WP:INVOLVED, that it may have become personal to you that, gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave.
But also, a block shouldn't turn into an announcement that we'll hold him down while anyone who doesn't like him gets to take a free swing. Yes, of course Barney's response is insulting and unhelpful. But frankly, I'm more appalled by Bearcat's behavior here. Why is he here picking at a scab on Barney's own talk page? Why does he get a free pass? He also needs to learn how to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse. The right outcome here is that these two editors, who obviously don't like each other, can learn either to avoid each other or at least play nice. The right outcome is not that one of them gets to pick fights and the other isn't allowed to respond, not even on his own talk page. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Msnicki: That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. 1) There's no humanly possible way of calling me "involved"; 2) I have no desire to "make" anyone do anything: Barney agreed to the rules, and no personal attacks was one of them, no matter what the situation; 3) I've obviously monitored the discussion, and you cannot honestly be suggesting that Barney is allowed to make snide remarks and insults towards Bearcat, but that Bearcat is not allowed to return to discuss rationally and politely their side of the story? Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying. If Barney had focused on their own behaviour and how it violated community norms, Bearcat wouldn't have had to come near this page...and Barney likely would have been unblocked by now, wouldn't they? Instead, false accusations and personal attacks were the words of the day ... and thus, protection was necessary. the panda ₯’ 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's tedious to have explain why anyone who speaks English (even if it a second language) should instantly recognize your response as uncivil (c.f., the example at WP:IUC, "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen".) When you continue to deny so implausibly that there could possibly have been anything at all insulting or improper in your response (to both me an NE Ent, as quoted above), you give me no hope whatsoever for a meaningful discussion on the deeper questions of judgment that I care about. I think you made a lot of poor policy choices, starting with your initial block, and that you got a poor outcome because of your poor choices. Most admins should have been able to resolve that dispute. Instead, we lost a contributor. That didn't happen just because you were uncivil, it's because I don't think you have the social skills necessary to moderate as opposed to escalate disputes. Some of us should social workers and some of us should be engineers. We should do what we're good at. If we can't even make progress on basic stuff, like simple civility, I think we're at that question of what you're good at. This is something you're not good at and you shouldn't do. Msnicki (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm neutral as to the deletion, I can understand the reasoning behind it, as well as the reasoning by the two parties to have kept it going. I do think it was a train wreck as written, for reasons I already expressed. If it is to be restarted, it probably should be restarted from scratch (copying the relevant parts of the filing), as the comments after the fact may not fit a new RFC/U. The "Running for Arb" stuff absolutely doesn't belong, as it looks like admitting hearsay and drags unsuspecting editors into a discussion to which they had expressed no desire to take part in. It simply isn't relevant and looks like mud slinging for the sake of it: It is simply too far out of the context of a behavioral RFC/U. Otherwise, I've been around to understand why people have concerns, and again, said as much there. My opinion is that prior to an RFC/U, proper procedure would be to try to hash out issues either here, or a similar neutral place. If that doesn't work, then THAT can listed as prior attempts to resolve the issues, and no one would question the validity of the effort. If the true intent of the process is to get DP to listen and be given an opportunity to address the concerns of the community, that seems to be the most obvious way to proceed. If we are just punching tickets on the way to Arb, I suppose it wouldn't matter. If that is the intent, I don't think RFC/U should be used that way. Dennis2¢ 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's my attempt to recycle the beneficial parts of the RFCU: User:Jehochman/Draft. The filing party and the certifying party could copy this, modify it to their liking and then repost. If any other party needs any of the deleted content, they can ask me and I will drop it on whichever of their userspace pages they specify. JehochmanTalk 17:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm okay to wait and see what DP does with the feedback we've given him. Some things we're good at and some we're not. We should do what we're good at, especially when insisting on doing things we're not good at means we drive people out of the project instead of helping them be productive. It sounds like RFCU has no more force than an opinion poll anyway. If DP's going to have to decide this on his own, it doesn't sound like an RFCU offers anything I care about that I don't get right here. Msnicki (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, I do sincerely appreciate the time and effort you've put into this. I see how your interpretation is reasonable based on the wording of the policy, but it doesn't make sense in the big picture. Two of the five pillars are in play here -- that Editors should treat each other with respect and civility and Wikipedia does not have firm rules. The standard for administrators is not perfect. Had the Barney situation been an isolated incident, a simple note on DP's talk page explaining how / why they mishandled the incident would be the appropriate response. But this is about a long term pattern of behavior, which is what RFC/U is for. Accordingly please undelete. NE Ent 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you've seen it, but MrX has a very interesting post on DP's page, attempting to have a one on one discussion (so I won't interfere, and perhaps none of us should). I was impressed by the sincerity and thoroughness and it is easy to see he isn't being confrontational. It is my hope that DP will take it seriously, and address the issues there. This is exactly the kind of discussion that should happen (in my own opinion) before an RFC/U goes forward. Without prejudice to whether this RFC/U is restored or restarted, I do think waiting just a little bit for a response will genuinely be beneficial. I strongly recommend that DangerousPanda take it to heart and calmly consider MrX's perspective, which I think is reflective on more than just himself. Dennis2¢ 01:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. I will consider both requests today. Let's not be hasty. JehochmanTalk 10:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello @DangerousPanda:. I think that recent events have clarified what people's concerns are. Please answer, if you wish, the following questions:
Do you accept that these incidents (see assortment of diffs in User:Jehochman/Draft) reflect standards that fall below what's expected for a Wikipedia administrator?
Would you be willing to make an effort to change your style?
My own advice to you is that it pays to be polite to everybody alike: trolls and fools and good faith editors. Insulting a troll gives them a feeling of glee and energizes them to do more trolling. Arguing with a fool makes it difficult for an observer to tell who's who. Cursing out a good faith editor will discourage them from participating and get their friends to chase you with pitchforks and torches. Nothing good comes from being rude, ever. The momentary satisfaction is empty. Do you agree? JehochmanTalk 23:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
DP can answer when he wishes, but I'm very uncomfortable with the draft. It's not the same as the original RFC/U, and it's not clear to me who's creating it. If you want to coach NE Ent and Msnicki about how to create a valid RFC/U, that might be acceptable, but you're doing it for them, and, in my view, that's not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What's very clear about who is creating it is that those editors who previously gave outside views, or supported others' views, have now been erased from the public history. Why has Jehochman taken this power upon himself to exclude other editors? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Anyone else can have their comments returned to them on request, should they wish to use them to take part in the new draft - I have not asked for my comments, as I was commenting on something that I thought should have no part in the RFC (and now, thankfully, doesn't). Neatsfoot (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure I've disagreed with all involved on this one at some point, but I don't see anything exceptionally bad, or even outside the norm for admins, in any complaints against the Panda. FWIW. Arkon (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
sigh. I know the section above is long and hard to follow so let me repeat. I will gladly give any user a copy of their prior sttement which they can repost where ever and whenever appropriate. The draft page I created is for Msnicki who needs a copy of her statement and who wanted my advice on how to form a proper RFCU. It's up to her and one other editor to go do that if they wish. My question here to DP is a chance for him to try to resolve questions short of an RFCU. Maybe I'm overly optimistic that he will answer and that Msnicki and others would be satisfied with the answer. The original RFCU page was deleted per the rules because it wasn't properly certified. This is normal, long-standing practice. JehochmanTalk 10:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can I talk you into using the |result = option in the archiving of the GamerGate proposals? I realize I am now in the habit of glancing to the upper right corner to see the result, and I suspect others do as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't, you'll soon see it. I think you know what to do. I have no idea whether you or anyone else will do it. Msnicki (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you should just walk away, because continuing the discussion further will benefit nobody. I don't know who you want me to block, but blocking is a last resort and only used to prevent harm, not to punish wrongdoing. JehochmanTalk 18:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You weren't sure I was complaining about DP's continued uncivil behavior, including his persistent insistence that I'm not acting in good faith? Given the link to one of DP's edits, who else comes to mind? I don't actually think you'll do anything. And, yes, Of course I'm walking away, which is exactly what I said in that section DP collapsed. I only joined this new discussion because NE Ent opened the RfC and it seemed like I could help. I try to be a stand-up sort of person when I think I can make a difference. But I do get disappointed when I discover I'm simply wasting my time, especially when I know I'm also way behind on grading papers. There is nothing more I can do here. It's in your court. Not my problem. My guess is nothing happens. Msnicki (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You can launch the RFC if you are not satisfied with all the discussion. I won't block him or anybody else for being snarky on their own talk page. If he comes to your talk page and is obnoxious and won't leave you alone, that's different. Let me know if that happens. JehochmanTalk 22:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, where was I snarky? Asked Msnicki a question on my talkpage about 4 days ago. I repeated 2 days that I was awaiting an answer - I needed to know if she was serious about working this issue out together or not. That answer never came after 2 requests. Instead, I got today's stuff. At no point was I snarky, I simply closed it because it was clear that she was never intending to work together, hence the lack of answer. I was fully engaged - including emotionally - on trying to resolve this. I cannot lay my emotions out like that if the other party has no real desire to help me to fix things and insists on "blocks" for no reason instead the panda ₯’ 23:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say you were snarky. I said, "I won't block him or anybody else for being snarky on their own talk page," as in, even if I assume that everything Msnicki was saying was true, it's still no where near enough to justify blocking anybody. The block shopping by her doesn't look good. There's a definite appearance of retribution or head hunting, which I do not like. You should just carry on as before. If a new RFCU is filed, please post a thoughtful response and trust the community to give accurate feedback. JehochmanTalk 23:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
My mistake then - it appeared that you suggested that I had been snarky already. My apologies. Emotions are still a little raw:-) the panda ₯’ 00:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the conversation has become toxic. Everybody would do well to let it be for a while and if no new problem develops, just let go of the past. If people still aren't satisfied they can file an RFCU and see what feedback the community provides. JehochmanTalk 00:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unsuitablity for admin role 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—
In your statement here, you linked "I communicated with the filers". But actually, that's a link to your remarks directed toward DP. You certainly did discuss your reasons with me and NE Ent. I think you can probably find a better diff to illustrate that. Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a huge discussion that I initiated, WP:AN#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain, which needs to be closed. You're uninvolved, and seem to be familiar with such matters as these, as you closed the discussion on the WP:GS/GG sanctions. Would you care to digest that discussion and close it as appropriate? If not, perhaps you could suggest someone I could ask to close it? RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I object to being labelled irrational. If you are able to formulate a conclusion that conforms to policy I suggest you do so. If you can't I suggest you undo your actions. I'm quite happy to report that as admin abuse. 3142 (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
This discussion shows no consensus for posting, yet you ignored consensus and posted it anyway. In my 10 years here, I have never seen an ITN item get posted this fast against consensus before. I really think you should revert yourself. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion in one place. I have a Watchlist. JehochmanTalk 07:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of how reasonable or not posting the midterm elections was, I believe you are seriously mistaken in saying that none of the oppose arguments were "based on policy or rational arguments" and find that mildly offensive. I respectfully request that you redact that statement. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You are misquoting what I said, and misunderstanding what I meant. The weight of the opposes was very light because most of them were not rational arguments. My comment about the opposes being irrational did not mean "each and every oppose is the ravings of a moonbat". No, what I said (more briefly) and what I meant was, "The opposes include a plurality of conclusory statements, positions not in line with our custom, and logical fallacies (e.g. not rational arguments). In total, they are not convincing." I am not changing anything because the discussion has been closed already, and it's time to move on. Next time I will be more specific, though there's not much one can do when people assume bad faith. JehochmanTalk 12:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I am, as you intended, annoyed that you mischaracterized my rebuke of your high handedness as "demanding" you apologize. When you act like a jerk, and someone suggests you should apologize, trying to recast the attention away from your misbehavior and onto some imaginary "demand" is cowardly, and much more transparent than you might think.
Now, if you have something to say to me, please don't ping me anymore on other editors' talk pages. If you want to say something to me, we can do it here or on my talk page. If you don't, then please feel free to treat it the way you treat all other criticism, and delete this thread from your page with a last word edit summary; that will be my cue that you want to move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's work through your issues one by one. I don't think I used the word "threatening" in any recent discussion to characterize your rebuke. If I did, please show me a diff, because maybe I missed it. JehochmanTalk 15:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears we cross-posted; I fixed my post above a minute or two before you replied. The word I'm taking issue with is "demanded". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It's not what I intended, but I am sorry for annoying you. That's never productive.
Calling somebody a coward is not useful. If you want to get to the bottom of your concerns, I suggest you refrain from using that word. It's understandable why you'd say that, and I'm often tempted to use the word "cowardly" myself, but in my experience, "coward" is a fighting word, and you usually get a fight after using it. I'm glad you weren't demanding an apology, and in fact, I've already spoken with Kudpung and re-established a friendly relationship.
As for deleting things from my talk page, I'm allowed to manage it however I wish. Deleting a comment is a confirmation that I've read it, and don't feel the need to reply. I leave plenty of critical comments here, especially if they are insightful or needing a reply (for example, the thread immediately above which established that I am a numbskull). Please don't over generalize to score a rhetorical point. Thank you for coming here and feel free to follow up with any additional questions or criticism. JehochmanTalk 15:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No more questions - it is clear to me what is going on. And offhand I can't think of any additional criticsm about this, I think I've pretty much covered everything already. So unless you plan on actually addressing the criticism somehow, I guess we're done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you pose a question to me that I could answer? I may be dense, but I'm not sure I fully understand your criticism. As a silly example you could ask, "Jonathan, do you agree to take your shoes off next time so you don't track mud in the house?" JehochmanTalk 15:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If it helps to frame it in that way, I'll ask several:
In the future, will you please not automatically assume the worst, call an obvious mistake "vandalism", and remove someone's entire comment rather than fix it yourself?
Yes.
If not, will you at least please not criticize someone who tried to tactfully and with no fuss fix your error, by claiming that running for ArbCom was making them act "weird"? That is deeply unfair.
I reacted negatively to the edit summary. Am I touchy sometimes? Yes. Should I be? No. Do I try to be more patient? Yes. Do I always succeed? No.
Do you agree, looking back, that you mishandled this, and owe T13 and Kudpung apologies? (If you interpret this as a "demand" again, I will scream in frustration and punch my monitor, possibly injuring myself, and it will be your fault)
I wouldn't want you to hurt an innocent monitor. I've already spoken with both editors and am making progress on repairing relations with them.
If so, why have you not done so yet? Or, do you think that your interactions with them so far "count" as apologies?
That's between me and them. Maybe I will say something more at a later time.
If, after reflection, you want to make unconditional, genuine, zero-snark apologies to them, not because I'm somehow "demanding" it, but because you've thought about it and realized they deserve them, that would be great. If they aren't genuine, don't make them. That would, indeed, annoy Bish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the questions. I've answered inline above. If there's any confusion due to format, please feel free to refactor (observers too). JehochmanTalk 16:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) When I saw this pop up, I got curious to know what would have two admins fighting. So I looked at that original edit by Kudpung. Now I know it's about 3+ admins fighting and the question seems to be how much good faith to give Kudpung for an "obvious mistake" that, sorry, didn't look very accidental to me. It's just not the kind of accidental mistake I expect from an admin. Do we allow such newbies at editing to become admins? It also didn't look very accidental in the context of Kudpung's characterizing Jehochman as being on the bureaucratic "sluggish" side of whatever this argument is about (sorry, TLDR). So I can understand why Jehochman might have felt insulted and had trouble seeing this as the genuinely innocent cut-and-paste mistake it probably was. Between reverting Kudpung's comment and asking him to repost versus fixing the signature, a thicker skin is often helpful on the internet. Even if feels like you have to bite your tongue occasionally to do this, it's still important to moderate your behavior consistent with WP:AGF. So, Floquenbeam, I think you have point. But it looks like you made it. Sorry, just my two cents. Msnicki (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
A comment on Talk: Michael Milkin regarding whether Drexel pleaded guilty or entered an Alford plea? Djcheburashka (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember doing that. It was a mis-click. JehochmanTalk 19:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha - thanks for the quick self-revert. Djcheburashka (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
... but that still seems like a pretty premature and light close. I know enforcing NPA/civility issues is controversial, but closing a section about repeated violations of hounding and npa barely an hour after it was opened with no sanction and no mention of NPA in your close seems like overkill. Although I didn't dig up anything other than the two most recent diffs, almost every interaction Giano has had with me has violated NPA (and as far as I see in arb policy, even though it's customary for arb clerks to handle issues on arb pages, they aren't out of the jurisdiction of normal admins.) For that matter, I don't think I've seen a close that light in any situation where someone explicitly admitted to violating WP:HOUNDING, even ignoring the personal attacks. Kevin Gorman (talk)
Let's wait and see what happens. Thank you for indulging me. AN/I doesn't always require long discussions; it's for incidents that need administrator attention. You filed a report, and got a result that will hopefully avoid further inconvenience to you. If editor A dislikes editor B, then A should be quite happy to ignore B. Right? JehochmanTalk 02:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish I could agree with you, but with his entire previous block log being the result of losing it in situations involving me, this isn't a situation where a polite warning is likely to result in a positive outcome - and with that many previous blocks by sitting arbitrators for similar behavior, the next time it comes up I cannot imagine that a polite warning will make a bit of difference in the outcome. Getting multiple blocks from sitting arbs is about the strongest message you can get, and when followed up by a polite warning, is kind of funny. I obviously can't make you block him (and can't block him myself,) but if ever a situation called for escalating blocks, this would be one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea how to make this edit visible so you can both read it here, where you appear be having such a cosy conversation. Contrary to his actions, Gorman is an employee of this encyclopedia not it's owner. If he makes high profile posts on high profile pages, I shall respond as and when I see fit. If you are unhappy with that, then take it to Arbitration. If not, then I suggest you don't give me instructions. I am not in the habbit of stalking, and certainly not editors like Kevin Gorman, so please be aware of that. Giano(talk) 09:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, you won't find anyone to deny that I have been a very close observer of Wikipedia's politics for a very long time. Therefore, it's hardly surprising that I should have a great many pages on my watchlist. Are you saying Jehochman that one can only comment on a thread if one has started it or entirely agrees with its starter? If that's the case, you are going to be very sadly disappointed - you may also find that few agree with you. Kevin may not like my views, but he's going to have to endure them; I find most of his pronouncements completely idiotic and many of his actions ridiculous - are you now advocating censorship? That may be the way you behave in America, but I can assure you it's not the way we behave in Europe. Giano(talk)
10:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking that if he makes an edit that pops up on your Watchlist you can reply as you like subject to the usual requirements of decorum, but please don't use the link that says "contribs" to follow him to pages you don't have on your Watchlist. If somebody is so dull as you suggest, it would be tedious to interact with them needlessly. Why go looking for such opportunities? As an administrator, I am sure Kevin can put up with some criticisms, within the bounds of decorum. A clever fellow can be critical without being uncivil. JehochmanTalk 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I will add, Kevin, please be careful not to engage in baiting. Your successive posts on this page have been unnecessary. Getting somebody blocked over and over is nothing to be proud of. JehochmanTalk 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I am also trying and probably failing to prevent a huge ruckus that will distract people from writing articles. I did not make any finding one way or the other that anybody did anything wrong. I tried, gently, to get you two to ignore each other. Clearly, what's going to happen is you will continue to escalate matters until some admin even more foolish than I am blocks one or the both of you, and then the usual circus will commence. I've seen that show enough times that it's become dull. I believe you both like each other more than you admit because you keep choosing to interact. If you really detest somebody, the best way to show it is by ignoring them. Some comments are so insipid that the best reply is none at all. I hope you both feel that way about this one. JehochmanTalk 11:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Please consider making yourself a candidate for ArbCom this year. Please. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, but I can make all the same points from the peanut gallery. There's no need to run for the committee and stress out my haters. That, and I don't have enough time available to do the job properly. JehochmanTalk 20:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
What an extraordinary thing you have done! I review three DYK nominations and strike them off the list supplied by BlueMoonset so that it is clear that they have been reviewed, and you revert the "strike-offs". Please explain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have fat thumbs and the rollback links are a complete menace on touchscreen devices. I'm going to investigate how to disable that feature or require a confirmation click. JehochmanTalk 14:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. You are forgiven! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman,
There has been an edit conflict when you closed the discussion that I started on AN/I. What should I do?
Many thanks, TonyTan98·talk 03:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, Johnuniq fixed the problem. TonyTan98·talk 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Howdy Jehochman. It is already happening on the case's talkpage. Groups are hollering, over the possiblity of one editor being banned & not the other:( GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Let them holler. We don't back down because somebody threatens to act out if they don't get their way. Regretfully I think we'll some people getting banned for battleground behavior. Nothing we can do when people won't listen to good advice. JehochmanTalk 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. What I am going to say is not to criticize you in any way, but just to bring something to your notice so that you can assess it on your own.
We don't back down because somebody threatens to act out if they don't get their way. Is that correct? I doubt it. I saw Dennis Brown's "long break" comment in the "Final comments" section and in my metaphysical reading of that statement, it could mean that he is going to leave if his favored ed is banned. Subsequent to that, the arbs came up with, and approved the prohibition remedy. I think you are now in a better position to decide if We don't back down because somebody threatens to act out if they don't get their way. is just for keeping people humored or for real. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's the ideal. We should try to hold the line. I don't know or feel comfortable discussion another editor's doings without inviting him. In general it's not unusual for editors to want to take a break, and we shouldn't ascribe additional motives. We could just ask him what he meant. Also, the prohibition remedy is based on some private information that's not out in the open. JehochmanTalk 05:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for considering and responding to my comment. I too like and appreciate the ideal, however, I do not see much reason to let my ideals/idealistic view overtake my perception/depiction of reality. As I said, I only wanted to bring this to your notice so that you can make your own assessment, and I can make mine. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have asked me a couple of times for an alternate blurb. My bottom line is that the item should never have been posted, and I still support it simply being pulled. That being said, if it stays up, "Rioting breaks out after a grand jury clears a police officer who fatally shot a suspect in Ferguson Missouri" or "Rioting breaks out after a grand jury finds the fatal shooting of a suspect in Ferguson Missouri justified" is much more neutral. Neither the police officer or victim was notable, and hence neither should be named. The rioting is all that is possibly notable. And the Grand Jury was sworn to indict if they found grounds to indict. Failure to indict is based only on lack of evidence, not on whim. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I will make that change. You have made good points. JehochmanTalk 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to personally tell you that I strongly support your actions and reasoning with this posting. Your boldness has benefited all readers here and ITN specifically. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
seems to be bouncing. SPECIFICOtalk 05:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Give me a moment to update the address. JehochmanTalk 05:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
More information Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share ...
i don't remember if I was never added or if I added and then removed myself. Years ago I discovered (through a severe dispute) that the category is a farce. I am highly opposed to it because it's most commonly used as a way for admins to avoid accountability. As in "Look I am open to recall. Just see if you can satisfy my criteria. (Smirk)" May I ask who sent you to ask this question? It's rather bizarre to think that you are doing opposition research on me. JehochmanTalk 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not really true; since you are in control of your own criteria, you can avoid the fake criteria and come up with real ones, if you want. Feel free to use mine (although I just realized that I have to update them since RFCU went away); you'd be hard pressed to hide behind them. I remember the dispute you're thinking of, and you are quite right that it is easy for someone to set it up as a quagmire. But it certainly doesn't have to be that way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's the diff. It was a very bad experience. I'm not getting involved again. JehochmanTalk 12:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood. Your process remains in place, you just object to the category. I don't quite understand the distinction, but that's cool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Except your process has been deleted, so I guess it doesn't remain in place after all. Oh well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where it went, but I just added it back to my user page. As of 2009 when I made the comment the process was in place. In 2011 removed that subpage while tidying my userspace, because it made mention of that prior dispute. JehochmanTalk 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Former text
For concerns about specific administrative actions:
Upon conclusion, if this process shows that I have lost the trust of the community to hold the position of administrator, I will step down or submit to reconfirmation (in my option). My threshold is a consensus of uninvolved editors in good standing who agree that I should step down or seek reconfirmation during an RfC that is open for the customary length of time. If events lead to a request for arbitration, that process will take precedence. I will follow the decision of the arbitration committee instead of the RfC.
My process also relied on RFC, so I've had to take out that step. You can see that my process now looks like the default policy that is in effect for all administrators. Please let me know when you get yourself a working criteria. I'll be happy to look to it for suggestions. JehochmanTalk 12:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Bug: it says, "If, after the discussion, you still feel I should not be an admin, file a normal WP:RFC/U or WP:RFC/ADMIN" JehochmanTalk 13:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Read the ambox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
People never read amboxes; they look like banner ads, inducing banner blindness. I have doubts that you could run an RFC successfully these days. It might be ignored or you might get a tornado of shrieking trolls (last pane). I love your idea about admins gaming recall and that you ask a bureaucrat to pull your bit if you try that, but I'm quite confident that no bureaucrat would do so. (Please chime in if you are a bureaucrat and disagree.) After a lot of experience I've come to the conclusion that the Arbitration Committee is a good way to resolve disputes, and that other processes such as RFC and Recall are inferior. A voluntary process like recall relies on good faith. When good faith is lacking, that's when the process is most needed. The admins for whom the process would work are the admins for whom it isn't needed. JehochmanTalk 13:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand the concept of semi-protecting pages. It's basically so that only editors with something of a track record of non-problematic editing can work on a given page, and seems to be placed after a history of IPs and brand-new accounts making problematic edits to the article. My question is this: how does one go about getting the right to place such protection on a given article? I ask because, having added 1000+ pages to my watchlist (all of the top- and high-importance articles from the novels wikiproject I joined), I see quite a bit of IP vandalism. While I've figured out how to use Twinkle to make reverting such changes easier, I think being able to semi-protect some of those pages from that type of vandalism might be a useful tool for me to have as well. I don't see anything under the "Preferences" tab lets me do that, so I thought I'd ask you how one goes about getting that ability. Is that something that ONLY an administrator can do? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage) 17:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Hallward's Ghost (Kevin). If you look at the Twinkle menu, you should see an item named RPP. Clicking it will bring up a dialog box allowing you to request page protection for the page you're on. An admin will then evaluate the request according to WP:SEMI. --NeilNtalk to me 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep. You have to go to WP:RFA and request administrator rights. Generally you have to have a couple years experience and a clear block log. If you write at least one featured article that's a big help. Even better is to just wait, and wait and wait until somebody says, "Hey, you should be an administator." Fear not, it is easy to request page protection if you see recurring vandalism. Go to WP:RFPP. JehochmanTalk 17:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! After I posted the question, I found that RFPP page, so the question became redundant. I didn't know, however, that it took so long to get some of the more advanced tools. I thought maybe the page protector one might be like the rollbacker one I saw on the user access levels page, but I didn't see it there when I glanced briefly through it, so I thought I'd ask. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage) 18:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Another question: do you know why my Twinkle buttons might've disappeared? I had just used some this morning on some vandalism clean-up, but now when I look at diffs, they're not there anymore. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage) 19:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Technical questions like that are best placed at WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. The buttons came back not long after I posted this question here, but I have now watchlisted the VPT page for if any similar questions arise. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage) 23:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Good advice, and I think I've been doing that. Still, it never hurts to heed wise words, and I thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I just saw the discussion closed. I appreciate very much your saying that diffs need to be provided to back up assertions about me. To be honest, I'm not quite sure where things go from here; I hope I'm wrong, but it sounds like the other editor can still follow me around, etc.? I hope I'm reading that wrong due to exhaustion. Thank you again. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Didn't I warn against needling? If they needle you, just point it out to me, and Winkelvi should let me know if you needle them. Please try to be tolerant with this user. They seem to have contributed useful stuff and claim to have difficulty with social cues. JehochmanTalk 16:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that, though I wonder if it wouldn't have been better if he and I formally were to have no interaction with each other. I'm quite certain he's going to continue stalking me and reverting me. I certainly myself have contributed a great deal over these many years, including creating well over 100 articles including the popular List of African-American firsts, yet I somehow feel as if that's being discounted. He's been cursing me and doing all these things for which I've provided diffs, and yet he's not being sanctioned and I'm being warned (and I do appreciate the head's up) that I might be, or might have been? I'm sure you can understand how this is all terribly confusing. That said, I did go to see if anyone at least has spoken to him about his behavior, and I'm grateful to see you've been trying to. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
And I'm not sure why he's claiming to you that he can't find his offensive phrase. It's right here. .--17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I redacted it and forgot to tell him. Oops. Please act as if there's an interaction ban. If you don't like somebody you will be happier not to interact with them. JehochmanTalk 17:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, indeed I will. I stayed away from June to November for that reason, and then he was back at me within days on my talk page. I never wanted wanted to interact with him, and I only can hope he doesn't follow me to pages or have his friends revert me for him. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If that happens, let me know. JehochmanTalk 17:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Just felt I should comment: the reason I proposed an IBAN was to prevent either editor from upsetting the other. Before you closed the thread, I simply wasn't aware that more diffs were needed beforehand. Sorry for starting a proposal when the discussion hadn't shown enough evidence at that point. I only wanted the feud to end. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
No worries. JehochmanTalk 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Check your spam. Thanks. Also, if you have any suggestions as to why I can't update my email address or to whom to address that issue, it would be appreciated. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You probably would be interested in this.Sca (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Aside from the obvious government contractor feeding frenzy, manned space travel is stupid when we can send computers, sensors and robots that don't require: food, oxygen, water, or ~155 lbs of protoplasm that turns to jelly at high g-forces, and is vulnerable to radiation. JehochmanTalk 18:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I have Johnuniq's talkpage on my watchlist after discussing some things with him. I noticed an odd edit summary from you (but no corresponding edit on his talk page) that had an edit summary of "changed visibility of a revision on page User:Johnuniq: content hidden (Potentially libelous/defamatory)." What does that mean? I know what "libelous/defamatory" means, but I'm unfamiliar with what the rest of your edit summary might mean. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage) 16:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed a very nasty comment placed by a blocked or banned editor who was using an anonymous proxy. In the admin toolkit we have a way to remove a specific revision (the text, the edit summary, or both) from the page history. You can read about the tool at Wikipedia:Revision deletion. I'm not going to repeat what was said because it was very nasty and threatening. The idea is to discourage these sorts of attacks by wiping them from view. JehochmanTalk 16:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link--that makes sense, then. I thought you'd left some sort of comment, but I couldn't find it there. Also, I have no interest in knowing what that banned person wrote. It was just that edit summary that confused me. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage) 18:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, if I see something similarly nasty and threatening, I won't be able to deal with it directly (not being an administrator), so do I just report it to you? Or is there a list of administrators somewhere that I haven't found yet? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage) 21:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You can ask me if I appear to be online, but for help from any available administrator, go to WP:ANI and file a report there. You can email email the Oversight team. If something is really horrible you don't necessarily want to draw attention to it with a noticeboard report. The emailed report remains confidential. Thank you for asking. I'm always happy to explain such procedures. JehochmanTalk 21:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That's definitely good information to have. I think I'll watchlist ANI and Oversight. Do those kind of posts happen often? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage) 21:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Not too much, thankfully. JehochmanTalk 22:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you think you can force through whatever stories you want at ITN regardless of anyone who objects for a policy-based reason? I can't think of such a reason. RGloucester — ☎ 14:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Besides your opinion, please cite any other opposes that are currently valid. Some said wait for facts to be known; they are now known. Some had opposed because the article wasn't ready; now it's been fleshed out. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a an argument that even gets considered. JehochmanTalk 14:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you get to determine whether the facts are "known". I believe that's for the people that said to "wait" to decide. Notably, others agreed with my opinion, which was based in policy. It is not a question of "liking", but one of relevance. That's a question supported by Wikipedia policy, in WP:NOTNEWS, and a variety of other places. RGloucester — ☎ 14:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Who agreed with you? Do you agree that 2014 Sydney hostage crisis is a 25kb article containing sufficient references, and otherwise in good condition? JehochmanTalk 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The quality of the article is not the concern. The concern is a matter of WP:DUE weight, and of WP:NOTNEWS. Events that don't have a clear historical significance are not suitable for ITN, otherwise we veer into news ticker territory. Are you sure you'd not rather work for Wikinews? It seems you are not content to write an encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you feel about the people who've been writing 2014 Sydney hostage crisis? Are they not writing an encyclopedia? History can't really be written until several decades after an event. When in policy does it say Wikipedia only covers history, not current events? What crystal ball do we have to tell us whether an event is likely to be historical or not? It seems to me that there are two big criteria: (1) do we have a reasonable, encyclopedic article about the topic, and (2) is the event widely reported in the world news? If there's some other criteria to consider, please point it out. If an event is trivial, we won't have a substantial article about it or it will not be headlines around the world. JehochmanTalk 15:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing against them. Let them write. However, when it comes to posting stuff on the main page, we must use editorial discretion to decide what has greater encyclopaedic relevance in this context, in contrast to everything else that is currently "in the news". What to post, what is encyclopaedic, is determined through discussion. If you steamroller through any objections that are raised, and there were a quite a few of them, then there is no point to discussion, no editorial discretion. It is unacceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 15:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any steamrollering. Various people made comments and I took all of them into consideration, filtered through the criteria of policy. If somebody asserts something that is clearly untrue or not a reason recognized by policy, I have to discount that. If somebody says "wait until" and then "until" happens, I read that as a support (and if "until" hasn't happened, it's an oppose). Have you ever looked at the traffic stats for different stories to see what is of interest to our readers? It is very instructive to do so. I'm open to being convinced by you, but I'm generally convinced by facts, not just assertions. For instance, if you could make a case that last time we posted a similar article relatively few people read it, that would be informative.(not so) JehochmanTalk 15:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Traffic statistics are useless. Why would we want to direct people to articles that they are already going to? Does that make any sense? No. Open up your morning copy of The New York Times. I presume, as you must be a respectable gentleman, that you have a wide variety of newspapers at your disposal. If you open it, you'l notice that this story only appears in a quarter page slot on A10. Are you going to tell me that a story that appears on page A10 of the most important American newspaper is worthy of ITN? RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but I only read papers online. At the moment this story is the top headline on the NY Times. I think that traffic stats should be looked at retrospectively to see if Wikipedia has been giving the readers what they want to read. This is standard practice in website design: to put the items front and center that the most people want to view. It now looks like this was a lone wolf terrorist, a situation that is of great concern to many people. In contrast, 5 people were shot in a domestic dispute near Philadelphia today, and I'm sure we won't be posting that, because its of little interest to people outside the United States. JehochmanTalk 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you're one of those internet types! That's a shame. Our job is not to give readers what they want to read, but what they should read. Otherwise, we'd end up looking like a tabloid and posting socialite gossip. Who are these people that it is of "great concern" to? Please don't start using the spectre of "terrorism" to justify posting items. There is no such thing as "terrorism". The word is only used to whip up people in a frenzy. It has no definition, and is discouraged by our MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 16:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I fully agree that the long page is annoying. But, please restore it to a sub-page for the sack of archiving. Thanks. Zhaofeng Li[talk...contribs...] 14:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm in the process of doing, but the server can't seem to handle the number of revisions involved! Be patient, I need to do it in batches. This demonstrates why allowing a page to get so big is a horrible problem. JehochmanTalk 14:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting that we email her; it was a much simpler and better solution than what I suggested or what anyone else suggested. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Wikipedia-advert.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't nice but removing comments is a great risk to trigger a wasteful conflict. A better response is to ignore the rude comment and shun the editor until he or she becomes more polite. JehochmanTalk 00:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that allowing oppose votes at ITN that say "I oppose...because X nominated it" are the sort of things that can be ignored given the purpose of the page. But it's not me being attacked, so I'll drop the issue. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!
Hello Jehochman, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Hi Jehochman, thanks for chipping in the last time. Needed your view on this. Thanks. WifioneMessage 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, the drafting arbitrators have decided to increase the word and diff limit for parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.
From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.
No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.
Hello again. As a reminder, when transcluding a Commons image on the main page, please upload a local copy and tag it with the {{uploaded from Commons}} template beforehand.
This is my third request. Additionally, an instruction appears in the ITN template's edit notice – a yellow box with a red "ATTENTION" heading and flashing "stop" icon.
I want to make sure that you're aware of the potential harm, which isn't hypothetical. Just last month, when this photograph was accidentally transcluded on the main page without protection, a vandal replaced it with [porn]. And that was merely one instance of many. Please understand that I seek to prevent such an incident from occurring yet again.
Thank you. —David Levy 21:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I only do mages rarely so I think I will just not do them at all. There has to be a better way. JehochmanTalk 22:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Can we ask a developer to create a magic word called __NOCOMMONS__ that would prevent display of commons media on a page? This would be very simple to code. The banner-blindness inducing messages in the edit notice are ineffective. JehochmanTalk 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I certainly would support such an enhancement. (Perhaps the magic word could even prevent a page from being saved in that state, thereby avoiding accidental omissions.) Would you be interested in submitting the request? —David Levy 22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If the ping either doesn't work or is overlooked, perhaps I must notify you this: I updated Boko Haram and bolded it deliberately. Also, there is consensus to post the blurb right away. Perhaps I'll notify someone else then. --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Emailed you. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't suppose you'd be able to take a photograph of the first Vermonter on the Conn River Line this Monday? I'd hoped to ride it myself but holiday plans intervened and I'm out of position. Cheers, Mackensen(talk) 01:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I will be traveling along I-91 through MA at some point on Monday. If I'm in position for either train I will get a shot. JehochmanTalk 01:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I only intercepted the Vermonter somewhere near Windsor, VT, so did not get the shot. Per suggestion of Giano, we found a black Labrador to go with our chocolate, and had to detour somewhere deep in the mountains to pick her up from the breeder. JehochmanTalk 14:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mackensen: Both FFM784 and I grabbed first day pictures: I at Greenfield SB, he at Northampton SB, and both at Greenfield NB. It may be a few days before all my shots are uploaded though.
Jehochman: I came here to comment on the edit you made to the equipment section of the article. Everything I've heard on the railfan forums indicates that that sentence was correct - with the backup move at Palmer eliminated, the second engine is usually unnecessary as the train will be wyed at St. Albans; however, the second engine will be left on during winter in case the wye track becomes inaccessible. However, I totally agree with your call to remove the sentence - it's probably wholly unprovable for at least another year. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Right and thanks! We don't know what they are going to do with the equipment. I ride this train at least once a month. NB and SB both have a convenient departure from Hartford and I do regular business in NY, WAS and Burlington area. Lots of crazy stuff happens in the mountains. You never know when a train might have to reverse a long way in winter. Having power at both ends is good insurance. JehochmanTalk 05:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:
In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.
As I said on my talk page, I need to be indefinitely blocked. As no one seems to be honouring this request, I am asking you to do it. Otherwise, I shall have to resort to edit-warring. Please impose an indefinite block. RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a block. I don't want to have to take drastic action. I need to be blocked. RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for welcoming on your talk page. I wanted to make a remark on the RGloucester discussion, I feel, repeatedly forcing him to acknowledge his mistake was the same thing why he was prevented from editing. I think the essay WP:EHP summarises my thoughts properly. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I did no such thing. He was blocked to stop disruption, and finally because he made a hostile attack on another editor after that editor made a perfectly polite (and correct) observation about policy. I wanted RG to acknowledge what policy says but did not force him to say he did anything wrong. Read the discussion more carefully and don't rely on second hand accounts. The essay makes good points. In the future I honk I will resume my prior policy of only blocking indefinely. It's better to wait until somebody is just totally out of hand. Trying to coax people to better behavior with blocks just doesn't seem to work. JehochmanTalk 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Yes, I agree with you Jehocham. In my view coaxing of any form does not work in long run, a perspective change or a self-admittance cannot be bargained. I just expressed my understanding after reading discussions. We do concur that RG must have already read the policy? At that point having him to express it in a manner we expect is what I believe ehp talks about. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Please reconsider your early close of the discussion, based on the following points:
There was no consensus to close the discussion
You provided no evidence of your charge of WP:BATTLE against me.
You are an WP:Involved administrator in the matter underlying this discussion. (See .) Only uninvolved editors or administrators may close discussions.
The underlying matter in the discussion is substantively unrelated to the GamerGate controversy.
I am personally uninvolved in the GamerGate controversy, never having expressed any opinion on the topic, or posted in any of the related pages.
The pages referenced by the discussion are not within the topic space of GamerGate controversy. (They are in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk spaces, and concern only the meta-subject of General sanctions applied to the Gamergate topic space.)
While I don't expect you to reconsider the closure, I wanted to follow procedure, and discuss it with you before filing for a formal closure review. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking in as an outside observer, don't you think it is rather disingenuous to claim that your edits are unrelated to gamergate when you are battling over the wording of a sanction related to gamergate, and your preferred wording uses "broadly construed"? Broadly construed means all pages, anywhere on Wikipedia, so your own previous actions largely defeats your complaint here. Also from an outside perspective, I would add that I endorse Jehochman's closure of that thread. Really, all I got out of that complaint was how much time you spent trying to nail yourself to a cross in a rather transparent bid to - I don't know, shame? - others into supporting your call for an excessive ban, all over a contentious topic you claim to be uninvolved with. Resolute 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
He names Jehochman as a third person, so that really only leaves one other person in a conversation that to date only had two people, doesn't it? The fact that such a question is asked might be seen as raising some serious questions regarding either a possible cognitive disorder on the part of the person asking it or perhaps some serious behavioral problem perhaps involving argumentativeness. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I think others, including Ian.thomson, have mentioned at ANI the possibility that an editor might be experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect. While it might not be directly applicable here, there are recognized disorders in which a person, sometimes motivated by something related to ego, sometimes not, assumes a much better grasp of something than others have, only to find that they have completely overlooked or ignored other, equally relevant, information. I hesitate to make these allegations, but, at least in my own interactions with this individual, there is a rather easily demonstrable absolute internal assurance of being right, and I think also, apparently, of thinking that only a few of the several relevant rules, such as policies and guidelines, are really important or applicable, and that all others can and should be ignored. I refrain from making any sort of serious attempt to interpret the specific nature of the unusual thinking here, because I don't know all the diagnostics involved, but I think that there may well be some sort of real cognitive impairment here. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I would think even a doctor would hesitate to make such a diagnosis based on postings to a website. I don't think we should be diagnosing our users. After all we deal with all kinds of crazy here, it should not be used for or against a person. Either they can edit here and get along or they cannot. Chillum 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
John Carter, maybe you should refrain entirely from commenting on other editors' competence. No good can come from the kind of comment you just made. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I basically agree, having learned that lesson in the Historicity of Jesus ArbCom case. He probably needs indeffing, but he doesn't need scolding. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
UTRS Account Request JehochmanTalk 03:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Untouchable_editors please delete. NE Ent 09:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Theres no accounting for personal preferences. It is funny, and anybody can join, thereby eliminating the idea that some editors are untouchable. One of the best ways to eliminate tyrany is to laugh at it. JehochmanTalk 11:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's compromise. If a bunch of people think the category is funny and use it, then we let it stay. If not, after a few weeks I'll delete it. Ok? JehochmanTalk 17:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's funny either. Even if you add yourself, it's still an attack page listing editors anyone happens to dislike. I've CSD'ed it. Msnicki (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You are purely being obnoxious. Please do not post on my talk page ever again, and do your best to ignore me, as I will ignore you. JehochmanTalk 18:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I really don't care. People should chill out. JehochmanTalk 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies if I was abrasive. Bad day here.
Please don't take anything I said personally. I was not at my best there. Begoontalk 23:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind words. Of course, I accept, and you should not worry about it further! JehochmanTalk 00:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
For the record, and once again, you've closed yet another discussion as an involved, non-neutral party. I'm placing this message here on your talk page so that I can refer to the diff for future use because this is a pattern with your closes. In this case, you called neutral parties who commented on MONGO's incivility "interlopers", which has no basis in fact. MONGO's incivility was recognized by at least six different editors alone in that thread. You also claimed that those who supported a civility block were "block shopping", once again, an entirely unsubstantiated claim with no basis in fact. Finally, as if that wasn't enough, you made the absurd claim that MONGO's long, documented history of civility disruption was only an allegation lacking evidence, and you pretended you had no familiarity with it, even though the historical noticeboard reports in question show that you directly participated and defended him in those past incident reports which you pretend to have no knowledge about. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I've never edited the article in question, and have no "involvement" whatsoever. Your block log speaks for itself. JehochmanTalk 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think this guy is going to stop I am no angel but that lambasting seems way out of tune. I noticed your comment on his talk page and thought I would mention this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
They reverted the comment so we should move on. JehochmanTalk 06:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You said that you will take the issue to arbitration if moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard doesn't work. I agree that, unfortunately, arbitration may be necessary if the conduct issues continue to interfere with solving the content issue. In view of the introductory statements, I think, also unfortunately, that it is unlikely that mediation will be successful. My thought in particular is that, if the case cannot be resolved otherwise, it isn't necessary to request a full new arbitration case. Instead, if a request is made for an amendment at ArbCom clarifications and amendments under the American politics case, with a showing that there is bad blood, the ArbCom can impose discretionary sanctions by motion, and throw the conduct issues to arbitration enforcement, where the admins will hand out topic-bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In response to the feedback provided by the DRN moderator, I was under the (maybe false) impression the discussion has moved back to the film article talk page. I think we can make decent progress towards consensus if we lay down some ground rules for civil conversation. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
A good tactic is to get the attention of third parties. This will create pressure for all the participants to be civil, lest a third party go file a complaint against somebody for obstructing or disrupting the discussion. You might also consider formal Wikipedia:Mediation if you would like more support. JehochmanTalk 20:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I am pessimistic about the suggestion of trying formal (heavyweight) mediation if the case isn't conducive to lightweight mediation at WP:DRN. There is a chance that a more experienced mediator might be able to deal with the conduct issues that are preventing resolution of the content dispute, but not much of a chance. Most of the editors named at DRN are focusing on contributors rather than on content. (The editor who has commented here is the one editor who is making a real effort to be reasonable. The other editors are too busy commenting on each other.) I will comment on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is regarding the AN/I thread on American Sniper (film). I think you've made a good decision when you recently closed the thread, and I appreciate the feedback you provided in your closing statement.
There appears to be a serious problem with this contribution on the thread. The contribution links to four diffs to edits I've made to an article, then quotes me as saying "I have not edit warred in years," then labels my words as "dishonest." Apparently the contributor is using the four diffs as evidence to prove I've edit warred, in support of his accusation I'm "dishonest." However, the contributor neglected to indicate that one of the four diffs is an (immediate) self revert, reducing the total number of valid diffs to two. I intended to post a polite (but firm) note on the contributor's user talk page to ask them to be more careful with their evidence-gathering and evidence-presentation practices, especially when making an extremely serious accusation of dishonesty on a major admin noticeboard, but since you have recently posted a warning on my talk page, I thought perhaps it may be a better idea to ask for your perspectives first.
By the way, I also looked very briefly and superficially at their edit history and now I'm slightly suspicious. I'm not an expert on user behavior and my suspicions may be entirely baseless, and thus I'll leave it entirely to your own judgement, but I find it slightly odd that a somewhat relatively new user (account opened Sept. 2014) would appear to be making what seem like very serious, highly disputed accusations against different users on several, different admin noticeboard threads (not only the American Sniper thread) regarding highly controversial subject matter. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I would let sleeping dogs lie. In general it is not right to complain about an edit that an editor has self-reverted. But perhaps the other editor didn't notice the revert. Again, I would let sleeping dogs lie in this matter. JehochmanTalk 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman. I was wondering if you had a minute to look into another issue on a page where I have a COI. I brought RTI International up to GA a while back. A couple months ago an editor added an NPOV tag, saying it did not include enough criticism regarding their work in rebuilding post-war Iraq. I've been trying to address the NPOV tag and posting at RSN, asking at IRC, etc. but not getting very much participation.
I started an RFC recently and just finally got a response, but was very surprised the editor seemed to be suggesting CorpWatch was a reliable source and seemed to imply that I was only against using it on account of my COI. Maybe you can tell me if I'm off base? Sometimes it is hard to tell if I am incorrect or if my COI disclosure has skewed an editor's perspective. CorporateM (Talk) 21:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, btw I didn't notice the wise and venerable DGG had commented yet when I left this note suggesting not much discussion had taken place. Some of the good sources that do exist is the Associated Press and this book. The book I think is by far the best available source and does not mention the news blips (the accidental killing in the current article or the lost cash that is not included), but does include a balanced account of both RTI's accomplishments in establishing local governance and its difficulty staffing such a large work-force that was largely restricted by military safety standards, lacked local cultural and language understanding, etc. To what extent individual news items and/or an in-depth analysis belong in such a section could reasonably be debated. Just wanted to share some of the good sources since the Talk page is a lot to look through, though honestly I'm not going for FA status here, so it's probably not that important. CorporateM (Talk) 00:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, can you please restore result of RFC. Another RFC is required to reverse it. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what part of BLP is being enforced "the subject doesnt like it" is not a BLP issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I've already explained it, but to repeat, the name is contentious, and also dubious. So in the interest of WP:BLP (and WP:V) we leave it out while the discussion is ongoing. I'm not going out on a limb about this: Tom_harrison and RegentsPark seem to agree that a more solid source is needed before adding this. I will look at your answer on the article talk page. Let's keep the discussion over there. JehochmanTalk 14:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: Your edit summaries at Acharya. With respect, coming into an article that has seriously debated whether to include an item over more than 5 years and that has included an intense recent RfC (2014) and offhandedly threatening "banning" for "BLP violations" is poorly done. Perhaps you find the RfC not sufficient, perhaps you find there to be a legitmate BLP issue (though the 2010 BLP/N did not find a consensus on that). The proper approach would be to take that theory to BLP/N (again) rather than to try to edit war the theory into an article while making threats not supported by BLP/N or the RfC. That is my thought. Personally, I could ultimately care less how she is called. I was however editing to the RfC consensus and dislike being threatened for doing so. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
As a note, if BLP/N or a new RfC were to support a change of the name I'd be fine with that. I have disagreed on policy grounds but I get that consensus can change. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
When we get into BLP issues, it's tricky because we have to be so cautious. In this case there's little to nothing gained by adding the first name, and it's annoying a real live person. JehochmanTalk 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Wifione(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about:
any Indian commercial organisation founded after 1915;
any Indian educational institution founded after 1915;
biographies of any living or recently deceased person associated with (i) or (ii)
and is restricted to one account.
2.1) Wifione may only regain administrative tools via a successful request for adminship.
3) Wifione(talk·contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
With a tone like this it makes it hard for me to tell if the content really is bias, or if it is merely the reaction of editors with a contentious attitude towards paid editing. I was wondering if you might have time to take a look, so I can get outside perspective on whether I need to get broader consensus or re-write. I did feel that the source material on this particular topic is pretty glowing and since it has to do with her government lobbying, sometimes describing advocacy gets confused for engaging in it. It is also not always easy to write neutrally when working with promotional sources. She is only marginally notable and some of the sources are things like West Virginia Living, which like most local sources is going to have a promotional bias. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Another one here if you're interested, but then I could keep you busy all day;-)
BTW - I don't know if it is actually prudent for an admin to threaten someone with sanctions regarding a page in which they are involved. In any case, while I don't have much experience with it, it seems sanctions are rarely dished out except for much worse offenses and often after numerous ANI visits first. CorporateM (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to ask me for help once in a while, but I don't want to be your, or anybody else's, "wingman" on Wikipedia. For best results post requests for help to a notice board so that you get attention from a pseudo random group of editors. JehochmanTalk 18:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but most noticeboard discussions started with a disclosed COI just get archived without intelligent discussion. I'll keep poking around for someone with an interest in participating constructively though. CorporateM (Talk) 23:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. . Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed this just now, IMO there's just something not-quite-right about whatever "question" is being posed. Figured I'd bring it to the attention of someone else who was named in the list. Any ideas on what this was about? Tarc (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It a question related to an ancient ArbCom case. It appears that somebody is fiddling with the stolen ArbCom archive file from a few years ago, and trying to rake muck. They are welcome to rake muck on some other site, but Wikipedia is not a hosting provider. For the person asking the question, I will give an answer: the Cyberstalking mailing list was used to share info about long term abusers who were stalking Wikipedia editors. This function has been taken up by ArbCom in recent years, after the Durova arbitration case where there was heavy criticism of a "sooper sekrit" mailing list, or star chamber. Having been on the list and seen what it was about, it was mostly boring and I am glad it's out of business. JehochmanTalk 16:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that old stuff? Yeesh. Y'know though, Mr. Kohs really isn't the Doctor Evil type that y'all make him out to be. If block logs are editable, it'd be desirable to edit that "Appears to be a MyWikiBiz sock..." line, absent actual evidence of such. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on behavioral evidence I will stick with what I wrote. We shouldn't fiddle with block logs of throw away accounts. If it's somebody else socking, the result is the same: WP:RBI. JehochmanTalk 19:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
my beloved aunt completely agrees with you. Giano(talk) 20:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm finally beginning to overcome the handicap of my low birth. Imagine somebody asking editors, "Are you, or have you ever been, a woman." It's just unworkable. JehochmanTalk 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Completely unworkable, but the older I become, the more inclined I become to allow people to make their own mistakes - At the end of the day, will it be any skin off your nose or mine, when it all goes belly up? Giano(talk) 21:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
None at all. The best thing to do is just let her do whatever she likes, and if it works, great, or if it fails, she learns something. JehochmanTalk 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite, and in the meantime the rest of us get some peace and quiet. Giano(talk) 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I just did. ;-) JehochmanTalk 12:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Jehochman! Random question here – when should you use {{Discussion top}}, etc., and when should you use {{Archive top}}, etc.? I noticed that you just used {{Discussion top}}, etc. at WP:ANI (and thank you for that!!), and I was just wondering why you went with {{Discussion top}}, etc. over {{Archive top}}, etc. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Random choice! JehochmanTalk 21:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
(Posting this because AFAICT I'm supposed to notify you)
I wanted to make a remark on the RGloucester discussion, I feel, repeatedly forcing him to acknowledge his mistake was the same thing why he was prevented from editing. I think the essay WP:EHP summarises my thoughts properly. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
