User talk:Jehochman

I saw your note

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

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

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

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

WP:BOMB

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

Just FYI

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

OK, I'll bite

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

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

Insanity

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

Please leave the Cirt RFC to neutral admins for closure

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

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

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

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

Request for Arbitration Notification

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

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

Diffs

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

Read WP:INVOLVED. I dont think you understand it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, to close an RfC early because you don't agree with it, as you honestly stated in your summary, is ridiculous. If I can figure out how, I'm going to undo your closure. An RfC should run for 30 days. That is standard procedure. Your comments would have been more appropriately expressed as an "involved view" or "outside view" in the RfC itself. So, I'll move your remarks to that section for you. The RfAR request served to bring more attention to the RfC, so those editors who found out about it via that exposure should have the opportunity to express their opinions in it if they so desire. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for admin intervention to ensure the RfC is allowed to continue running. Again, if you have strong feelings about the veracity of a user conduct RfC, then put your opinion as an "outside view" or whatever. If you think it should be closed, then start a discussion thread about it on the talk page. To unilaterally close it while saying how much you disapprove, is really, really disruptive and unhelpful. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cla: back off. You're deeply partisan in this; don't try to pretend to offer impartial advice, or to act in an impartial role, because such is frankly not credible William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's too late. Once I report it to AN for administrator intervention, it's out of my hands. If Wikipedia expects editors to use and have trust in the dispute resolution process, then the process needs to work as designed. You should know this. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't too late. RA has reverted his revert, so it is still possible for you to revert your revert. Good news eh? Anyway: someone as deeply partisan as you shouldn't be touching this and should be well aware if that. Put it back to how it was before you touched it, now, while you still have a chance William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WMC, when I engage in dispute resolution, which as you know can be time-consuming and stressful, I expect it to work as it is designed to work. If RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days and not be considered for early closure unless an ArbCom case actually opens, not just be considered, then that needs to happen. If the dispute resolution process isn't allowed to work, then editors have no reliable mechanism to use to resolve disputes, and Wikipedia descends further into chaos and anarchy. It's unfortunate that I've had to request administrator intervention to ensure the process is allowed to continue without interference. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In case you missed it

In case you missed it: [1]. Perhaps you misunderstood me, or I misunderstood you. Either way, some clarification would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

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