User talk:Jehochman

Meowy

I think it would be worth giving you the heads-up, if you aren't already aware, that the block on Meowy (talk · contribs) has expired and the user has returned to editing. CT Cooper · talk 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then they are welcome to edit. Jehochman ^Talk 03:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He according to {{Gender}}. There were suspicions of socking until very recently, but none were blatant or proven. There are no edits so far since the block expiry that appear to be problematic, so I hope it stays that way. CT Cooper · talk 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Humor tag

Please undo that. I think Elen was serious. She posted in the meta-wiki RfC along the same lines as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Her question can't possibly be serious. She must have been trolling us. Please let her come to me if she has any concerns about the tag. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've notified Elen. Note that User:Maunus also thinks there's something in that RFC perhaps worth examining [1]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the tag, and would ask Jehochman to ask me in future before presuming what I am thinking - advice every man ought to follow anyway when dealing with a woman (and that *is* humour). The reason for the post was that given the continuous barrage of accusations that Arbcom holds trials in secret, exonerates its friends, and sweeps everything under the carpet, I wanted to give a space to any third party who might ask "yes, but is there something in this." I don't think there is - I don't think Gwen Gale is a worse admin than anyone else - we all make errors of judgement, and do things in good faith that don't work out so well. Mbz1's life has been derailed by the way she reacted to a block on editing a website, not the block itself, let's be clear on this. But equally, there never was an RfC, there never was a massive Arbcom investigation. Everyone Mbz1 mailed it to looked at it and said "can't see it myself" and left it at that, often I suspect without emailing their response back to Mbz1. I just wondered if that was enough for the community. Evidently it was. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Lol! Seriously though, I thought ArbCom had recently looked into this matter. Why else would you ask if there was anything to look into at unless it was some sort of humor or sarcasm? Why doesn't ArbCom take a look and them make a formal statement about whatever it finds, instead of informally dismissing, or failing to respond to Mbz1? A banned user they should get a clear answer, not a disrespectful non-response. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get at. Yes, we did all look at it - I'd seem several iterations of it by this point, and so had a couple of others. Mbz1 posted the response she got from Arbcom at meta, and it basically just tells her to disengage. I didn't think then, and still don't think now, that a point by point refutation would have made any difference, even if it was delivered by the Archangel Michael. I think Mbz1 would just have added Gwen's ability to influence the heavenly host to her list of complaints. But I was wondering if a formal point by point answer had become necessary, and if the community wanted to see it. Perhaps I could have phrased it better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I think a formal point by point answer might actually help; I suspect most editors aren't quite so likely to stick their necks out as I sometimes am, but when I read through that whole lot, I have to say I was left with what the UK Appeal Courts would call "lurking doubt". I wouldn't be at all surprised if others were left with lurking doubts, too; so a point-by-point rebuttal may very well clear some air which the Arbs etc. may not even be aware might need to be cleared. Wihtin reason, anything which increases the community's trust in the Arbs has to be a good thing. (I think!) Pesky (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Youreallycan/Off2riorob block log

15 blocks and counting. How much longer is this going to continue? Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly. Has there ever been an RFC? Their combativeness if poisonous to the wiki. With a relatively small adjustment that energy would manifest as passion for good work. Jehochman ^Talk 12:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thread is "Request for block review". Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 03:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

HI there user:Jehochman. As you may have noticed, my broadband connection is giving trouble, and I did not intend failing to notify you of the thread. *I am not (and now never will be) an admin.* So, with the block issued by you, there needs to be a review, and you can hardly fail to know that it would go to ANI, you do a lot of work there. We already crossed paths, communication-wise at the IP's talk page, and I have had my say. You are having your say. Consensus will prevail, nicht war? 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I know is that this edit and its follow-up[2] were not advisable at all, and could certainly be construed as low-level harassment based on the fact that 90.179.235.249 pretty much had to have followed Jehochman there. That said, I think Jehochman could have passed this on to another admin, and thus avoided any sort of accusations of involvement in the first place. I don't see a long-term history of disruption in their edits, and I can understand why they are upset. I would not react in quite the same way, but that is just me. They should still certainly be listened to in good faith. Doc talk 06:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing the Holy Sentence

I'm afraid that nobody is permitted to edit the Holy Sentence. Ever. There shall always be No Consensus for any changes, and if a consensus appears to be forming, a RFC will commence. If consensus at the RFC forms to change the Holy Sentence, then the RFC will be re-advertised at ever-expanding venues using increasingly hysterical language until the correct state of No Consensus for changes is achieved. You can change anything else at WP:V and nobody will bat an eyelid, but the Holy Sentence is eternally sacrosanct and inviolable.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, we can change it. It just requires more effort, and repeatedly asking anybody who stonewalls to give specific objections. "No consensus" and then reverting is disruptive stonewalling. Jehochman ^Talk 23:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good luck with that strategy. Are you actually hinting at blocking editors as "disruptive" for reverting edits like this? I would seriously re-think that one. Doc talk 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I say anything about blocking? ArbCom has repeatedly stated that editors may be sanctioned for behavior that interferes with the formation of consensus. I do not think the problems here have risen to that level yet, except perhaps for a few personal attacks here and there. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool - just checkin'! I would just also note that "disruptive stonewalling" does not mean keeping the current version until a new consensus for a change is agreed to by everyone. As I have pointed out to S Marshall a few times, we are trapped in the "Seek a compromise" section of this flowchart, and we are trying to get to the last step, the "New consensus". Cheers :> Doc talk 23:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Doc, the one compromise you offered, I agreed to. The compromise Blueboar offered, I agreed to. What we have on that page is a problem with editors who will accept any compromise at all, provided it keeps all elements of the Holy Sentence firmly ensconced in the lede, with both "The threshold for inclusion" (singular, one threshold) and "verifiability, not truth" (which must be in bold, and must be followed by its emdash and its redundant tautology that's redundant) exactly in place.

  Honestly, Jehochman, I've tried "repeatedly asking anybody who stonewalls" until I'm cobalt blue in the face. I've been doing it since November 2010. I'm afraid I think the problem there is a great deal more deep-seated than you yet realise.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was disappointed that the one I offered was shot down so quickly, as I thought it would satisfy both sides. Wishful thinking. Blueboar's proposal I disagreed with, but was absolutely sure would pass. When the three admins deemed there was no consensus for the change, I took it at face value. I didn't join the party on the talk page until this, another suggestion I was disappointed to see shot down. In the thread just above the one where I first joined in the fun, we see a poll that is overwhelmingly against removing the Holy Sentence. Outright VNT removal, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be much of an option. Wherever we all go from here, we should have learned by now that "big BRD" changes have really not worked. So we have to find a new compromise. I don't know any other fair way to do it. Do either of you? Doc talk 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was part of the group working / discussing for months and months how to get that troublesome triad out of the lede; it was a long, hard slog to get a consensus among all those who'd shown some interest, over all those months, but we did it. And then came the infamous RfC, which looked to be going just fine. As expected, some opposition, but not a lot of hysteria. Then, at the eleventh hour, a whole new slant was put on it ... and all hell slowly broke loose. I think one of the worst problems we faced was trying to get across to people the idea that the policy wasn't being changed, and the Holy Sentence wasn't being removed altogether. It was just going to be moved further down the page, and a bit of explanation on what it actually means inserted. [Onoes! Gasp! Shock! Horror!] And, even then, we seemed to have what appeared to be a pretty good consensus to go ahead (yes, even counting the !votes of the people who'd apparently misunderstood). And then nobody could agree on whether there was consensus or not. Jehochman, you maybe have no idea just how incredibly disheartening that was, for those of us who wanted to improve the damned thing so that people couldn't get away with arguing "It doesn't really matter that it's not true, because it's verifiable." On that policy, for the time being, I've given up trying. Pesky (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is at least one reason that the Holy Sentence cannot be changed: certain people do not understand that it means what it says (that verifiable untruths are allowed). Thus, no alternative text can be agreed upon. To get past this impasse, there is only one possible course of action which will work: first form a consensus on what VnT should/does mean, and then and only then seek alternate text. Seeking alternate text prior to agreement on what the HS means will never work. BTW, most of the proposals do change the policy, and it's no wonder they didn't get consensus. B^e——C_ritical 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The main problem is that "truth" can mean facts according to reality, or it can mean fidelity to axiomatic beliefs. If "truth" is used in the second sense, I agree wholeheartedly that Wikipedia is not about what editors believe based on faith. If used in the first sense, VNT is just plain stupid. It is more important to be accurate than to rigidly adhere to verifiability. If somebody finds some incorrect nonsense in a source, they cannot robotically insert it into Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 07:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is tons of untrue stuff that the majority of the RS say: witness the changes in scientific consensus over the years, as well as other scholarship. Thus, we do repeat verifiable untruths. In a case like you mention, we should modify material we believe to be untrue only based on other RS and WEIGHT. Actually I'm guessing we agree on this. B^e——C_ritical 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Why is it not obvious? It is obvious that "truth" can mean facts according to reality, or it can mean fidelity to axiomatic beliefs. And thus this "Holy Phrase" is very confusing to those editors who can actually understand written English. Such a small minority can not prevail, apparently. NewbyG ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of which bow to verifiability. The VnT phrase is correct, just difficult and we don't all agree on what it should mean. B^e——C_ritical 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't we tweak the wording to make it crystal clear? If we can agree on the meaning, then wordsmithing is relatively easy. I agree that the threshold is verifiability, not personal belief == verifiability, not truth. However, if we use that wording, we need to explain what we mean by truth, since the word is potentially confusing. Jehochman ^Talk 07:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruption of Verification debate -- SPI

Hi Jehochman! I know you are aware of recent disruption associated with WP:Verification, and that you have taken steps against the disruption. Well, I've formed a view as to who is behind it, and have opened an SPI... See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger Pearse. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops - busted?! It's WP:Verifiability, not WP:Verification, FYI. This is going to be a very interesting SPI... Doc talk 04:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just another editor who sees someone with a different opinion and calls it disruption. NewbyG ( talk) 07:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you two connected? Where one posts the other soon follows. Jehochman ^Talk 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask - are you paranoid? These talk pages are being lurked by more than myself, I presume. I am me only, and in my case, it is an attempt to keep up with the latest dumb moves taken by them that have got no clue. Self-protection. To be utterly clear, I am me, and I never heard of user:Doc9871 before coming to that wretched page WT:V. Check it out. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 07:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)