User talk:Jehochman

Please leave a new message. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

15 minutes too late

it seems. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You counseled me to try working with others. Here I am trying to pour some oil on troubled water, and you are jumping on me. Why? Is this topic anything to do with the ban? Absolutely not. No technical issue has come up at all. It all is about handling a dispute, which is exactly what you want me to engage in. Please explain yourself. Brews ohare (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith. I am not jumping on you. I am trying to steer you away from trouble. If somebody gets a ticket for speeding, it does not make sense for that person to take up the cause of another party who's been accused of speeding. Please find other things to do besides intervening at ANI in discussions about tendentious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained why this activity is heading toward trouble. If my proposals for resolution are not acceptable, so they won't be tried. Brews ohare (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing is adding noise and length to the thread, which prevents it from resolving. If you had good judgment, you would not have gotten topic banned. Please, stop disrupting Wikipedia with voluminous posts and argumentum ad nauseum. I'm hereby banning you from my talk page. I'm tired of dealing with you and your assumptions of bad faith. I see that you posted about me at User talk: Hersfold and did not tell me.[1] That reinforces my view that you're a disruptive editor out to make trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 23 October 2009 (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.

More problems with Daedalus969

User:Daedalus969 left several messages again today on my talk page. He even reverted me after I removed his comments despite the fact another administrator told me I can remove anything I like.

Keep in mind these comments have nothing to do with an edit but rather the contents of my talk page. Below are his diffs:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

He then tracked one of my edits on an article and reverted it: [9]

What should I do about this? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like User:Gwen Gale has handled it already. My advice is to keep calm, and if somebody has disputed the way you quoted me, you can ask them nicely to come talk to me about their concerns. If you do quote somebody, it's a good idea to make that clear, but failing to do so is not a severe wikicrime. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

I think it is lame that the other editor in the dispute was blocked and Mr Unsigned Anon was not but I think both of them needed a simple warning (like you did) so I'm happy to see him not blocked. I would be curious about the check user. It looks like the requesting editor could be assuming bad faith but the duck test appears damning here. I personally am just curious and wouldn't be surprised if it is a user who was trying to start fresh and was never blocked but we won't know without the check user. Is it a complicated process and would the check in itself reflect negatively on the editor if the results are negative?Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a link to the discussion you reference? Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#1.4 Mr Unsigned Anon or diff. I am hoping the accusation that he was previousley blocked is incorrect since he has actively engaged in discussion trying to get stuff straight more than once but it seems appropriate to check with the charge left hanging there and the other editor getting blocked. If it is an editor who switched names I don't even want to know about it. If it is a completely new editor then it would be right for the other editors to acknowledge the screw up.Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice please.

This [10] is apart of a long going debate/dispute around the lead section. I like to ask you if Stellarkid (talk) way of arguing is according to the discretionary sanctions. I was to answer and confront him about lot of statements in this post but that might inflamate the debate even more and/or become a conflict. Short background. User nableezy put lot of effort keeping it a policy baseed discussion. Cptnono (talk) stongly oppose him but keep discussion on a fair level and motivating his disputetagging of the article well. Advice or intervention appreciated. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a content dispute. Don't raise the temperature. Instead, make your points calmly, referencing facts to reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. No, its not about content dispute, atleast anymore. Please look into this request. [11]. Stellarkid is here on a mission. These editors bring any editor interested in NPOV in conflict. Administrators must interfere much more in IP-conflict articles to keep NPOV and if needed take stand against attempt like this. Or Wikipedia have given up its ideals. Stellarkids request is a scam and he is a big part of the problem, dont accepting WP:NPOV and bringing Israels view into Wikipedia whatever cost. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The usual

Russavia has chosen to address me directly here: [12]. May I respond?radek (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how direct intervention would be beneficial. Why don't you ignore them for the sake of avoiding disruption and conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding conflict only encourages it. I cannot help but to consider the timing of Russavia's AfD during the course of the EEML proceedings as indicating his testing the limits of his topic ban and intending his action as a provocation. However, for now, I will refrain from introducing Russavia's AfD as evidence at EEML. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I voted delete. This article is not even questionable. It is rife with original research and sythesis. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated, I would have preferred some restraint on Russavia's part until the EEML proceedings are complete. I was not commenting on the merits of his AfD. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I see no reason that Radeksz can't address the concerns that I have raised with the article. So long as, like myself, postings are kept to the merits of the AfD; i.e. comment on the state of the article and why he believes it should be kept, and not comment on editors. I wouldn't so tedious as to claim that because Radeksz responds to my post, that he is breaching the topic ban. Discuss edits/articles, not editors. Do you know what I mean? Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than nominating Polish puff-pieces for deletion, why don't you focus on some of the many Russian articles that need attention? There is lots of work to do. Why choose something that is going to inflame other editors? Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not commented on any editor anywhere on that page.radek (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I am Russia topic banned, hence for me to follow your suggestion would entail me breaching that 6 month ban; needless to say, I am editing Russia topics on another wiki :) As far as I am concerned Jehochman, a puff piece (as you describe it) is a puff piece and it does not fit in with being an encyclopaedia, and as an editor who is here for the improvement of the encyclopaedia, such articles will be nominated for deletion; either via AfD or PROD, and I have done many of these in the past, and will of course continue to do so in future. The only reason I didn't PROD this one is due to 1) the fact that the sources are such that a casual observer would believe it is notable, and 2) the fact it had previously survived an AfD. If people are getting inflamed, they need to WP:AGF and argue to keep the article on the merits, which I believe I have presented pretty well as to why it should be deleted. But yes, I did learn of the existence of this article by looking at a previous Arbcom and finding it being mentioned there, and was quite surprised that it survived deletion the first time around. It is nothing more, nothing less than that. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's correct Radeksz, you haven't commented on any editor, but I was simply saying that as long as one comments on the article in question, and not editors, then I see no reason as to why you would be in breach of any Russavia topic ban. Commenting on the article, and not editors, is why I asked Matthead to strike his comments, both in the AfD and on his talkpage, and for the precise reasons that I presented. Assume good faith as to why the article has been nominated, and I am sure that decent discussion can follow. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I suggest you not follow my advice then. Go edit something the other disputants would not likely or properly object to. Why are you topic banned from Russia? I was not in on that decision. Jehochman ^Talk 16:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman, I bet you don't even realize that you have an anti-Polish bias, but since you do have quite a following here also, all I want to do is I'd like to point your attention in that direction because sometimes a word is all that is needed really to the fact that I have been traumatized by Russavia's provocation and regret allowing it to color my perception of editors crossing over from the EEML proceedings into the AfD. --Poeticbent talk 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What an obnoxious comment for you to make. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend your sense of personal pride. Just wanted to help, that's all, but the decision is yours of course. All best, --Poeticbent talk 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

I saw your edit on the ANI thread about Likebox. You might want to mark the thread resolved at the top (where I marked it unresolved) and/or notify Likebox about the resolution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to consider noting the restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. So much bureaucracy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All set. A little bureaucracy is a necessary evil. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Probation on Likebox

If you have come to this probation idea independently, I hope that you reconsider. If you are not familiar with the editing on the pages, you might get the wrong idea. The conflicts I am involved with are about two pages where I am trying to fix discussions which are embarassing to Wikipedia:

1. History Wars: The consensus for 60 years about the genocide on Tasmania is being challenged by some right wing Australian writers. These writers are overrepresented here, compared to the weight they are given in genocide studies. This is important to fix, if the coverage of history here is not to be a joke.
2. Godel's incompleteness theorem: I gave a self-contained proof that some editors didn't understand. This happens often, and much of the purpose of the discussion is to make sure that editors state clearly what they believe mathematically, so that if there is ignorance, it can be combatted, and this subject, which is sometimes misunderstood, can be presented clearly.

For 1: I have given about 10 sources (some of which I have read in detail) to show both that this is the position of nearly all genocide scholars and most historians, and to explain what the position is. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar sources. The other editors have decided that this material should not be in the article, and there is nothing I can do to oppose the two of them, except leave a trail of sources on the talk page and wait for someone else to join the discussion. Because of the continuing conflict, an uninvolved administrator (I think it was Nick D) has been looking over the editing, and concluded that I was not doing anything wrong.

For 2 (which is a completely separate issue): The proof of the incompleteness theorem is very well known in mathematics. There are many different presentations, one of which is due to Kleene in the 1940s. The Kleene presentation is the one that I put on the page, and I called it the "modern proof". To make it self-contained, I added the following innovation in exposition: instead of using the Kleene fixed point theorem, I had the programs in the proof print their own code.

Since this proof is extremely familiar to me, and I know for many years that it is identical to Godel in its fundamental construction, I did not see any problem with putting it here. On the other hand, "print your own code" is a slight simplification of the Kleene fixed point theorem, and using it in this exact way is a slight innovation, mostly pedagogical. But this is not a crackpot proof, it is equivalent to standard proofs.

The fix to the "OR problem" in the case of "print your own code" is just for me to publish it somewhere. I did not do so because I did not think I could prove any new theorems with an idea which is so trivial and only different from classical methods in a superficial way.

I urge you to reconsider your decision. Wikipedia must allow free debate without sanctions, so that when pages get stuck in a certain position, they can be unstuck. As an editor, I do not accept mediocre pages, so I push against consensus, knowing full well that this may take years of struggle. But it is important not to punish such behavior, but to accept it as a loyal opposition.Likebox (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have graduate degree in computer science, with a focus in theory, so I could probably help with Godel's theorem. As for Tasmania, I am not familiar with the subject. These are content disputes, and you are welcome to use dispute resolution to have your concerns addressed. You first stops might be WP:3O and WP:M. Have you tried those processes yet? It is very important not to bang your head against the wall. If your discussions with other editors are not fruitful, you need to take appropriate steps, rather than repeating yourself and becoming frustrated with them! Probation is an extremely mild remedy because it only prevents you from doing that which you should already not be doing. If you are editing properly, the probation has no effect on you whatsoever. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

About the probation--- you are right, in theory the probation would have no effect if I stick to 1RR. But in practice, such administrative decisions give support to the opposing editors, and they have been engaging in some administrative tricks. Any administrative action tends to send the message that their position will be protected from opposition. I worry that this will lead other editors to stay away from these pages, which have gotten stuck in a rut.

The reason I don't go to dispute resolution is because I have a naive optimism that these issues can be sorted out without high-handed intervention, just by reasoned discussion. This position might be incorrect and naive.

About Godel's theorem, if you have some experience with it, that's terrific. The discussion on the talk page on the page has been bogged down in stupid quibbles. The standard proof of Godel's theorem is not completely self-contained. One version goes like this (I like CS language for these sorts of things):

You first prove that the halting problem is undecidable. If a program P takes an integer input x, you can't decide when it will halt or not. The proof is simple: if there were a program HALT(P,x) which takes program P and input x and correctly tells you whether P on input x "halts" or "doesn't halt", then you make the following program SPITE(x):

SPITE(x) takes input x and computes HALT(x,x), treating x both as program and input. If the answer is "halt", SPITE goes into an infinite loop. If the answer is "doesn't halt", SPITE halts.

SPITE([SPITE]) (where [SPITE] is the code of spite considered as a large integer) then has the property that it is testing itself for halting, and doing the opposite of whatever is predicted. This is a contradiction.

The "innovation" I added here is to avoid using inputs: instead of having SPITE take input x, just have SPITE print its own code. This is done in many textbooks, and the process of showing that a program with input can be replaced by a program that prints its own code is called the "Kleene fixed point theorem". But in CS, it is an exercise to write a code that prints its own code, it is called writing a Quine.

So to show that the halting problem is undecidable, you write SPITE to do the following:

1. Print its own code into a variable R
2. calculate HALT(R)
3. if the answer is "halts", go into an infinite loop. If the answer is "doesn't halt", halt.

It's the same proof, but replacing the tricky self-reference using variables with a slightly more obvious self-reference from printing your own code.

Once you show that the halting problem is undecidable, you can note that a complete consistent theory of arithemetic would prove as a theorem "P does not halt" for all P's that don't halt, and "P halts" for all P that halt. This would solve the halting problem. So QED.

What are the issues with this standard proof (which currently appears on the page)? One issue is that it is in two stages: first you prove halting is undecidable, then you use that to prove incompleteness. If you want to fold the two proofs together, to make a self-contained proof is easy.

Suppose you have an axiomatic system S for arithmetic, then you can prove that this system cannot prove at least one true theorem. Write SPITE to:

1. Print its own code into a variable R
2. deduce all consequences of S looking for "R does not halt"
3. if it finds this theorem, it halts.

Now SPITE does not halt, and S cannot prove that SPITE doesn't halt (at least if S is consistent). The reason is that SPITE halts the moment S proves that it doesn't, and if SPITE halts, then S is sufficiently sophisticated to follow SPITE step by step until it halts and to prove this also.

So this is the folding in of the halting problem, so that the proof is self contained. There is one nice thing about this exposition--- the Rosser theorem becomes easy to prove. To understand Rosser's theorem, note the following: SPITE does not halt and S cannot prove that SPITE doesn't halt. But S can prove that SPITE halts (and that's a lie).

So construct ROSSER

1. it prints its code into R
2. it deduces all consequences of S looking for a) "R prints 0" or b) "R doesn't prints 0"
3. if it finds a), it halts. If it finds b), it prints 0 and halts

Now S cannot prove either "ROSSER prints 0" or "ROSSER does not print 0", showing that S is incomplete.

These are the rejected proofs. Are they original? So far, nothing new. But with another modification of the program I prove a theorem that might be new.Likebox (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Without checking your proofs in detail, the issue is not whether you are correct or not. That doesn't matter. If you think the "standard" explanations and proofs can be improved upon, by all means you should publish a paper on the topic! However, Wikipedia is the wrong forum for novel academic work. You need to 1) publish your ideas some place reliable, then 2) suggest them to Wikipedia editors for inclusion in our articles. As you have experienced, we are rank amateurs (mostly). We don't have the skill to review an academic paper and determine it's correctness. We have to rely on other publishers who we thing are reliable. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that novel results should go into a published paper. But these exposition tricks and rewriting are in not very novel. Folding in a proof of a lemma into the body of a theorem, isolating the construction in the proof, and simplifying the exposition, are not original mathematics in and of themselves.

When you say that Wikipedia can't determine correctness, I think this is a bit of a mistake. Editors often need to determine correctness for mathematics pages, and are generally OK at doing so, so long as they don't call the authorities in. Most proofs on Wikipedia don't follow the textbook, and some of them are very well written. Often they are clearer than the proofs in the textbooks.

On the other hand, there might be an extension of this type of discussion which might make it appropriate for a journal (the stuff I put on Godel's theorem would definitely not be suitable for a journal, which is why I thought it would be good here). If so, then it is perhaps too original for Wikipedia. But I hope it isn't, because it really isn't very original at all.Likebox (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I want to say the same thing in another way: this proof is not different from the version in textbooks, it is the exact same proof in the textbooks, written in English. In Wikipedia, you are supposed to write clearly. So if you have a textbook proof which uses specialist language, you can de-jargonify it. This is what I did for Godel's theorem here. It is not substantively different.

If Wikipedia does not do this simplification, its purpose will not be served. It will not provide accessible knowledge. The issue of rewriting and simplifying is the central concern in mathematical exposition. If the editors refuse to do it, or believe it is not important, they should change their mind. It is always possible to simplify proofs to the point where anyone can understand them, by breaking up the steps into chunks, by folding in lemmas, by suitable examples, and by preliminary theorems. In the case of Godel's theorem, there isn't even very much that needs to be done, because the proof is already pretty simple.Likebox (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be cursed to be in the position of being right, but not yet able to convince others. I recommend you let the issue sit for a while, and come back to it later. Time may be your ally. Don't push too hard. Perhaps you could find another article where there are worse problems to be fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary

See also: Talk:2009_flu_pandemic § Worldwide_view

[13] I take issue with your edit summary here. I was not "defacing" the article. Just because it passed a GA review doesn't mean it stays a GA forever. I checked the GA review before moving that tag from lower on the page to the top. The issue was brought up in the GA review and I can't see a response there on how it was addressed. Just a catch all "I think I took care of the rest of the issues" down below. I had also started talk on the talk page prior to moving it if you'd like to contribute.--Crossmr (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You placed an ugly maintenance tag at the top of a good article. That's not a sensible thing to do. It just passed GAC a couple weeks ago. Your comment about not staying a GA forever is a bit flippant under these circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

maintenance tags are not "ugly". I placed a maintenance tag on an article with a very thorough description of why.--Crossmr (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point you are the only editor who supports placing the maintenance tag. Please wait a little bit and see if anybody else endorses that action. Right now it is one in favor, two opposed (myself and implicitly the GA reviewer). I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, but let's discuss this a bit. I will admit that I dislike maintenance tags because some folks (not necessarily you) go skipping through Wikipedia sprinkling tags everywhere, rather than actually improving the article. This particular article is very heavily trafficked. If you raise a concern on the talk page, it is likely to be addressed and fixed. There is no need to place the concern on a maintenance tag. It's just not making Wikipedia better, and in my opinion, the tag makes it worse. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No actually I'm not. I didn't place the tag on the article. I repositioned. Another editor had already placed it on their previously. So if you want to count heads its 2 and 2 and clearly disputed. That was clearly pointed out in my edit summary which said "moved to top". Its unfortunate that you have a personal issue against maintenance tags, but they are widely used across wikipedia and community consensus supports their use. In fact you'll find it was Rich Farmbrough who added the globalize tag originally [14] almost 2 weeks ago.--Crossmr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but two to two is still a toss up. Let's get opinions from more editors, and see if we can get the article improved. We are in complete agreement to improve the article. A tag does not make the article better; editing often does. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you've written that the GA reviewer has noted that he feels there is too much US centric information in the article. That means you're the only person opposing that viewpoint. Even though you've made a couple of, what I consider, rude comments, I'm going to assume good faith that you'll restore the tag since you're clearly in the minority until the situation is rectified. I have no intention of having the article delisted, but the tag should remain until the problem is resolved so that other editors who might not visit the talk page can be notified of the problem and lend assistance.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a place to insert it on the article talk page, so I'll opine here. With respect to Jehochman, that does look like a somewhat US-biased article. Virtually every section starts with the US viewpoint. Alphabetically, they should be near the end. Chronologically, Mexico should surely take precedence, and Canadian hogs were the first in the world to have H1N1/2009 virus particles detected within them. Obviously the CDC is taking the lead on the laboratory efforts, but pretty much every country in the world is addressing H1N1 - so it could be a little more well-balanced, GA or not. I won't get into my thoughts on public hysteria here, other than to note that on the first day of vaccine release in my area, which was supposed to be for the high-risk groups, pregnant mothers in their third trimester were waiting for hours in line behind the people who apparently couldn't read. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here in Connecticut we haven't had public clinics yet. They shipped the vaccine where it had to go, to midwives and pediatricians. We have a baby at home so we were all considered high priority. When I took the kids to the pediatrician for their shots, he tells me to get one. I say my doctor has none. He says, "fill out this form and roll up your sleeve." Done deal. I even got a Sponge Bob Band Aid.

As for the tag, there is a section on the article talk page, and if the issue is raised, there are multiple editors who will rapidly help. If that does not work after a few days, then add the tag. I just hate these silly tags and think people should not use them without first making an effort to correct the problem, or asking others for help. I've seen editors going through the wiki sprinkling tags here and there without actually solving any problems. Then the tags sit there for months or years and nobody does anything about them. Jehochman ^Talk 07:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the community likes them or we wouldn't have them. Not every editor has time to fix every problem on every article, but they might notice an issue while reading something casually. They're tagging it (and starting a talk page discussion if the reason isn't abundantly clear from the tag and edit summary) for the very reason that editors who may be more interested/invested/knowledgeable about the article can properly address it. The fact that tags sit on some articles forever isn't grounds for removing tags from articles before addressing the issues. That's an indication we should be encouraging editors to pay attention to those categories and work on article clean-up. Its not a reason to hurl insults and revert over it when its become rather apparent that the tag was warranted.--Crossmr (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Plain talk is not an insult. If I wanted to insult you, I'd do such a job, your ears eyes would melt! The article is in a proper state now. A few sections are tagged, and people are working on improvements. Thank you for your input. Jehochman ^Talk 08:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that I was "defacing" the article was an assumption of bad faith, there is nothing plain about that. The tag you claimed I was "defacing" the article with was already on the article, and since your removal plenty of people said, or been shown to have said that they felt the article was US centric. Defacing something has a very negative connotation and the implication was that was in somehow damaging the article be repositioning a maintenance tag. for someone who is an admin and has their own personal essay on rudeness, I would expect a much better choice of words.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy is back

Among the first edits he do after his 3rr block. " I suspect he's some unemployed, over-the-hill loser who still lives with his mommy and has lots of time on his " [15]. Please ban him. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

350.org

You have a history of protecting reputations on wikipedia, given your zealous reversions of my updates to David Copperfield's page. So, the article 350.org is now brought to your attention, in which a probable scibaby sock (certainly a SPA) called Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has smeared the organisation by implying they have some connection to the actions of an unknown individual. The sock broke 3RR edit warring it today, and was backed up by involved "admin" Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is ideologically opposed to the organisation. The incident in question [16] is unrelated, not notable and overweight on the page. I'm interested to see how you handle this. Here's the Talk page discussion. ► RATEL ◄ 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it all becomes clear

Some people might assume bad faith after reading this, but I do not. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

I have done an RfC on the Talk page of 350.org. I am doing this in order to reach consensus rather than have edit wars done. This is my first RfC. Would you kindly check, at your convenience, that I have entered it correctly?

Thank You, --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. I will look later on when I have time. Some of my talk page lurkers (thare are several hundred) might help in the meanwhile. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I'm not going to get too involved. The reason I put up the RfC is to get the opinion of others. In the end, it doesn't matter too much to the big scheme of things. Take care, --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman, blocked user Moonbatssuck has returned as Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs) and now MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) and once again has broken 3rr on the article. ► RATEL ◄

And yet another reversion diff. No action to be taken? ► RATEL ◄ 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how things work here in terms of line of command, but some other users are trying to get me banned over on the 3RR board because of my past usernames. I already admitted that I acted imprudently at first, but I feel like I am finally getting the hang of things on here. I am in a bind because I understand that you don't want to unblock inappropriate usernames, but now I am labeled a sockpuppet because I admitted those past names. I will keep getting the "blocked user" thing thrown at me. I'm not going to lie and just cheat the system with a new "unconnected" one, so any help would be nice. Thanks,---MoonHoaxBat (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a good word for you. Hang in there. It's just a website. Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• You protected the wrong version, rewarding the #RR3er Rubin. There are more voices on Talk asking for the smear to be removed than to retain. ► RATEL ◄ 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect the wrong version I must per our customs. Resolved the content dispute must be, then fix it you can. Jehochman ^Talk 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, clearly more voices want the smear removed than retained, and although I tried to compromise and find middle ground with Rubin, he rejected compromise and 3rred. So I have the numbers in the RfC and I have made compromises ... what more can I do against relentless POV editing? So now the article effectively links 350.org to ecoterrorism and an FBI investigation, none of which is appropriate on notability and weight grounds. As I said, given your alacrity in protecting the reputation of Copperfield, I'm intrigued to see if you can be even handed in this dispute. ► RATEL ◄ 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)