User talk:Jehochman

Leave a new message. Extra credit for politeness.

Archives
June 2006 – Mar 2007 Mar 2007 - August 6, 2007 August 7, 2007 - October 25, 2007 October 25, 2007 - the mysterious future This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

We need your help BADLY

Hi, it's me from the Toto page from a month ago. On the page for the "Barenaked Ladies", there's one poster who won't stop using sources that are not reliable. He's using only 2 sources for the entire page and they are from 2 alleged tv specials even though there's no evidence that these tv specials actually aired. Please help, can you look over the page and talk to the poster TheHYPO. I've told him he needs more sources and better sources. He's just ignoring me, he has a bad attitude. You were such a great help last time with the Toto page, I trust you 100% with these situations.

Writer1400 Writer1400 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm heading out the door. Please take this to editor assistance for quick action. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Per my RfA

Thanks for the note on my request, I see your suggestion and appreciate the idea. Would you be willing to be my "admin coach"? Rudget _{Contributions} 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to coach or mentor you. Please contact me when the RFA closes. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to assist me if I get the mop, I'm going offline now though. I'll definitely help with the DYK suggestion tomorrow. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for all the help you gave me in the RfA, which closed with 39 supports, 15 opposed and 1 neutral. However, I'd like to decline your offer of helping me after the request, because I feel I need to gain my own experience through channels, that I choose, because that is when I feel I will get recognised as a responsible and mature editor. I'm sorry for this message being a bit late, I only remembered you when I looked at ANI before, and thought "damn....". Anyway, thanks once again, maybe you could vote in my next one? that will hopefully succeed :)

Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already contacted you about admin coaching. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 2

Thanks for the funny note and the barnstar; probably only you and I "get it". I was tempted to say something funny on your RfA, but was afraid it might backfire since, well, my writing sucks and it probably wouldn't come out funny.

The problems with SC are deep and long-standing; being name "worst" by him could be considered an honor (I suppose you'll put that forward as evidence in the ArbCom case as an example of his behavior?). I support your efforts wrt the ban, but this brings to me to another issue. To me, the most important issue. My prose isn't particularly eloquent or succinct, so I ask you to bear with me and understand what I'm trying to convey.

I have typed and deleted and re-typed and re-deleted a response to the change you made to the banning policy, and decided instead to discuss it first with you. It's never wise to base policy on one case, no matter how strong it is, and not every case is like Sadi Carnot. His is not the only case before ArbCom right now involving the need to clarify the ban policy, and I'm afraid your change will introduce a worse kind of abuse than the abuse you seek to correct. Did you follow the MfD of the Community Sanction Noticeboard and the types of problems that led to its deletion? There are worse evils than "reduc(ing) Wikipedia's security to the level of the least competent, most gullible sysop" and that is elevating bans to the level of the strongest abusers and votes by popularity contests. Recent abuse at the Community Sanction Noticeboard led to its deletion and confusion about the ban policy. Editors were site banned based on "votes", not discussion, and in spite of several editors willing to unblock. That kind of abuse, IMO, does far more damage to the longterm health of Wikipedia because it causes productive editors to leave in disgust. After viewing multiple instances of abusive bans or attempted bans, I almost quit editing Wiki. The community can deal with the SCs, but more harm is done when productive, hard-working, well meaning editors tire of witnessing abuse and leave. Discussion, not votes, is the way to go, and when that fails, ArbCom is the next step.

IMO, ban discussions should proceed as this one did: [1]. I hope you'll read it carefully as it frames my basis for how I view sitebans and the discussion of them; the discussion proceeded over at least four days, and I was able to check in daily, even while on vacation, before decisions were made. Although I was (and remain, both on- and off-Wiki) the victim of an extreme attack and harassment that undermines Wiki and my editing, in the face of overwhelming consensus that the editor should "not only be off Wikipedia forever, but probably in jail or a mental institution as well", one admin argued that mentoring would be a better approach. He was not gullible; he was right. Had this editor been banned, the harassment I deal with would only be worse. It is up to me now, if I'm tired of the harassment, to bring it before ArbCom; Wiki treated every editor as fairly as possible. And even though I remain under attack, I would much rather live with the harassment than to accede to a system that allows for any group to force any editor off of Wiki permanently, because THAT is more dangerous in the longrun because it alienates and embitters good editors.

I fear that the changes you made to the banning policy will solve one problem (the SCs and Zs) at the expense of opening the door to a much larger problem of systemic abuse by groups of editors promoting agendas. I guess I prefer gullible to the more insidious harm that comes from the other kinds of abuse I've witnessed on Wiki. I really oppose that change in wording to the ban policy, and I strongly encourage you to consider that there are other sides of that issue and to investigate the issues I mention. I hope I've got some credibility with you, so that you'll work to understand the broader issues, beyond one bad editor here and there, that concern me. As you can see, your change to the banning policy would have made my life simpler; my harasser would have been banned by overwhelming consensus against only one admin advocating for mentoring. A ban wouldn't have been the best outcome at that time; admin abuse chases off more good editors and does more long-term harm to the Project than the SCs and Zs, who can be dealt with by other means. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My approach is (1) stop them, and then (2) offer a legitimate way back. Indefinite blocks aren't infinite. Perhaps the banning policy should say that any administrator can unblock a user on condition of mentoring them and taking responsibility for their edits. I said this to Physchim62, that I would agree to an unblock if Physchim62 would take responsibility for Sadi. P62 waffled and then unblocked before arranging mentorship. That's ass backwards, which is how we ended up where we are today. Turning loose a problem editor before arrangements are made is reckless. Nonetheless, if an admin wants to unblock a banned user and mentor them, that's something that the community should always support. Would it help to write that into policy? - Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern is the whole introduction of two classes (de facto banned and consensus banned).[2] I don't think there should be any such thing as a consensus banned as you've defined it, as it opens the door to the same kind of abuse that was occurring at the Community Sanction Noticeboard. I support the long-standing policy which was if any admin was willing to unblock, there is no ban; discussion ensues at WP:AN, and it goes to ArbCom if admins can't work it out. Again, I'm far more worried about the type of abuse we saw at CSN than I am about the CSs and Zs, who can be dealt with. Your concern is to "stop them"; you can stop them by putting in place a one-month block (see the Z case above) while the community has time to discuss and resolve without wheel warring. By doing that, we can develop more consensus, better long term solutions wihtout pressure, and avoid potential for abuse. The kind of abuse of bans I saw at CSN and other places makes me want to leave Wiki forever and simply not lend my hard work and good will to a Project that tolerates railroading, while the harassment I live with as a result of an imperfect ban process is not something I can't deal with or which will cause me to leave Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you propose a new process?

If a user might need to be banned, the blocking admin can place a one month block. At the same time, they initiate a ban discussion at WP:AN. While that discussion is ongoing, the block must remain in place, unless overturned by Arbcom. Once the discussion at WP:AN reaches a consensus to ban, topic ban, or unblock with or without conditions, the original block is refactored accordingly. If the discussion leads to no consensus, the case is referred to Arbcom.

This process would prevent wheel warring, protect the encyclopedia, and allow administrators to resolve their own disputes most of the time.- Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that *is* (or was, before the change) the process currently in place, and a change proposal isn't needed. Did I miss something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, did I start this? :-) I found that "users" subpage by Sadi Carnot and pointed it out at WP:RFARB. Another note I left led to Jehochman leaving me a note, and I came here and saw that Sandy was here, and went to Sandy's talk page and saw that the Users page had been pointed out. I should have thought of the barnstar myself... Anyway, Jehochman responded to my concern that AN and ANI are not really suited for the type of discussion that took place about Sadi Carnot (AfD tends to be more forthright about BS in articles), but I like the suggestion give above. I never really followed CSN, though I caught the tail-end of the MfD. I have noticed longer and more disruptive discussions on ANI since CSN was shut down. I always thought ANI was for quick stuff, and AN for the longer stuff, so maybe AN is a suitable place for discussions. I wonder if the shorter discussions there will suffer though. Whenever noticeboards are shut down, there is a period of adjustment as different communities clustering around various noticeboards adjust to accommodate 'refugees' from the closed down noticeboard. What might help is better management of the noticeboards, with off-topic stuff directed to the right noticeboard. Anyway, hopefully things will work out. Carcharoth 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you didn't start it <grin> ... I was very worried about the banning policy even before the SC situation came to light. If you take the time to read through the link to a banning discussion I gave above, you may see why I stridently disagree with this newfound notion that WP:AN isn't the right place for these discussions. I strongly believe it *is* the right place, and the current *perception* of problems surfaced as a result of the abuse that was occurring at CSN and its subsequent shutdown, and that some editors and admins honestly came to believe that we can "pass out bans like candy" based on "votes". It's a dangerous precedent: more dangerous than the random SC situation. I strongly hope we just go back to the way it was before all that CSN nonsense, and that folks will settle in to realizing that it was the aberration, and that the long-standing way of handling things on WP:AN (as in the link I gave above) worked. I'm very concerned about the abuse, and if anything will eventually cause me to give up on Wiki, it will be watching editors be railroaded based on selective application of policies by groups. Please keep in mind that SC is not the only banning situation before ArbCom right now, and not all situations are as clear as his. SC was clearly a long-standing problem, but we can handle that via the usual processes. I don't believe in any separate noticeboard where users can be banned; the abuse was occurring because groups could ban users without broad community awareness or input. It belongs on WP:AN, in plain sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with plain sight. Can we get the banning policy clarified to document the consensus about how the process works so we have something to point to when an admin starts acting impulsively? - Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the banning policy was, no ban if any admin was willing to overturn. Can we get that back in? I know it works against the SC situation, but I'm confident we can deal with that. I hesitate to get involved in policy talk pages, though; nasty past experiences there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree to 1400 admins each having individual power to veto a ban. That means there are no bans, because one fool will always oppose just to show off. If a discussion leads to a consensus that the editor should be banned, then that should do it. If somebody doesn't like the result, they can appeal to Arbcom. This site isn't as small as it used to be, and the financial motivations behind abuse are much stronger now that we are a top 10 website. Times change and so must we. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your points; still very worried about the downside of absue potential. One thing that would help is that we not shuffle ban discussions off to some obscure noticeboard and keep them centralized at WP:AN, where they get broader input. But a question; are there actually 1400 *active* admins, and how often do we see the kind of wheel warring that occurred with Sadi Carnot? If we separate the issues (that the ban shouldn't have been overturned, it should have been discussed in depth), why not go back to the old way? The ban was put in place when no admin was willing to overturn; maybe we should do as you said above, and formalize it to a one-month block discussion period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with that is it may do some people an injustice if they are blocked for a month and then the block is eventually overturned. The blocked user could discuss on their talk page, or be unblocked to participate in the AN discussion, and that kind of unblocking shouldn't be seen as wheel-warring. The unblocking admin would make clear that the person being unblocked should only edit at AN, and that others should feel free to reblock if the user becomes disruptive. Oh dear, it gets complicated. Carcharoth 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this, we need to separate blocking and banning. This concept of indef block mutating to become a ban needs to be deleted because it encourages wheel warring and unnecessary indef blocking. We block per WP:BLOCK. Separately we can propose a ban, or other community sanctions at WP:AN. The two are independent. I think that solution removes the most problems. We still have evil voting, but that's a problem for another day.- Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. Please check this version. The concept of an indef block morphing into a ban is marked historical. Bans are serious. When needed they should be discussed at a central noticeboard. The idea of indefing and then another admin overturning is a big problem, as we have seen. That sort of block-pong should not be encouraged. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now there's no mention at all of the long-standing policy, "If no administrator is willing to unblock a user, and the user has been blocked after due consideration by the community, the user can be considered banned." Whole thing makes me uncomfortable, too much abuse potential, I disagree with the direction it's heading, but since I hate policy discussions, I'm going to bow out now. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There must be more to all of this than meets the eye, and I must not be privy to something, because it's disconcertingly confusing to watch all that is unraveling with the various blocking and banning situations while the policy page remains strangely quiet (seems it's only you and I and a few others talking there, so I have to guess the real conversation is happening elsewhere). Since I'm not even an admin, I 'spose I have no business opining, but I don't want to be part of a Project that is governed by mob rule, even in the cases where we may ultimately be right (such as I believe is the case for SC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the policy and it's basically correct at this point. Read it once more. If you figure out where the real conversation is happening, let me know, so I can join. We are talking at bit at requests for arbitration. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ah, thanks for pointing me at that conversation; no wonder I felt in the dark :-) At least it's being seriously considered. I hope that my concern that it discussion not be based only on the SC case be taken into account, and that they are considering the other banning cases before them in the same vein. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we all should have a pow wow and get everybody on the same page. I don't really how the banning process is set up, as long as it works and we understand the process. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to WP:BAN

Erm, where is your consensus for your changes to WP:BAN? After my comments about your handling of the Sadi Carnot case (you have still to provide the list of pages which you tagged), I must formally warning you against disrupting Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes were gentle, and were discussed. Nobody else has reverted them. I need to remind you that you cannot use sysop tools against me while we are involved in a dispute. It is extremely unwise for you to threaten to do so. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Might I remind you that this was not a sysop action. Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The threat is obvious. You are going to leave me "warnings" and then go to ANI to request somebody to block me. Don't try that game. We are at Arbitration, and the dispute can be settled there through civil discourse. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And WP:BAN can be fixed by a community discussion which will probably last more than four days and will involve more users than have commented at present. I have not asked you to be banned at ANI, that's your game. I have asked for review of a potentially controversial action. Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is a very emotional issue. It is worthwhile to engage more people in the discussion at ANI. Our case isn't the only one like this. It may be time for Wikipedia to rethink the community banning process and clarify it to prevent good faith administrators for getting into disputes with one another. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot case

With this edit, you are returning to your habits of attacking users for their beliefs rather than their actions. You have obviously learnt nothing from this fiasco, and I can only hope that ArbCom gives you the cluestick beatingvery firm explanation as to why you have consistently ignored good faith and any arguments which run counter to your own, made personal attacks on users and have disrupted Wikipedia by your hysteria that you deserve. You are well aware of what my real response to the feeling of having to implement such obviously ill-discussed and ill-argumented bans was—I asked to resign as an administrator and only agreed not to so that I could participate in a soluton to this problem. You are crying for rights which you have systematically refused other participants in this case, myself included. I will stop myself from putting into words my other opinions of your behavior. Physchim62 (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor the above remark for civility. Wikipedia does not issue "beatings". It is unseemly for an administrator to make such a threat. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A "cluestick beating" is a common admin phrase for telling someone (often another admin) exactly why they are completely wrong. I have no lessons on civility to receive from you, I am afraid: you are aware as to why from more private conversations. Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I deserve as much respect as any other user. You may use phrases like cluestick beating with your friends, but not with me. I don't care if rudeness is standard behavior around here. I don't approve of it. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you deserve as much respect as any other user who makes actions such as yours. I try not to descend to the level which you use with others. Physchim62 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This conversation isn't going any place good. Please refrain from further discussion here. Let's agree to disagree, and take it to arbitration instead. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

agree. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This conflict between you and me is very minor in the scheme of things. The bigger issue is how can Wikipedia most effectively deal with disruptive users. I suggest focus on clarification of the policy rather than attacking each other. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Calm down

I'm certainly on your side, but I can tell you that your reaction to Physchim62's asininity is not helping your cause. An onlooker is going to think of you as a whiner. Kww 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

:-) OK, I'll wait until something actually happens before I whine. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

COIN Comment Blanking

Thanks for the heads-up. I have no issues with the courtesy blanking, now that the issue is apparently resolved, and since he only deleted comments that I had struck-through anyway. There's always the historical record if ever needed. Thanks again! Arakunem^Talk 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Capture bonding

Would you please try to figure out what Keith is talking about on Talk:Capture bonding#I agree? I am utterly unable to see the difference between the term used in abnormal and evolutionary psychology. Publicola 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic makes my head spin. Maybe we need to contact the relevant WikiProjects or open an RfC to get more comments. This article has been to Mediation Cabal and now AfD with no clear resolution. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Jehochman

I hope you are well. Please note the activities and claimed identity of User:Linshukun. He seems to have resumed serious editing as of 24 October. I have discussed his apparent relationship with Thims at the Gladyshev afd as well as the forum posts allegedly written by him and answered by Jimbo. There is more. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to explain it all satisfactorily. This is complicated. As I have said before - we were given these clues deliberately so we should be cautious when interpreting them. I will try to post a more comprehensive comment when I can. Best regards --TreeKittens 07:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick review of his edits certainly raises my suspicions. Perhaps a check user is in order?Kww 09:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to request a checkuser, if you have sufficient evidence to do so, but I think you might also ask User:Carcharoth to investigate this matter and make a determination. Checkuser is not required for obvious cases of sockpuppetry. Carcharoth is familiar with the case, yet not an involved party. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I read quite a lot of your discussions and learned some, now. I had a mixed feeling but finally I would say that your guys are doing quite well in keeping Wikipedia in a good shape and good science. By the way, about my contribution to "Gibbs paradox", I deleted the parts wrote by me. Sorry for creating so many versions for "Gibbs paradox" by adding and correcting every time I can log in. I am still new here. However, I did not delete the parts prepared by other people. --Linshukun 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive users

Nope, no one has bothered me usually, thanks for asking. I would however, without naming them, have faced a few editors who've come to me and tried to tell me to stay away from certain articles. Maybe you know who they are but that doesnt matter; I'll try to keep it impartial. If there's no administrative official consensus on me working on a certain article, then they have no right to tell me to stay away from those articles. They should be warned in fact, not to own an article like this. An article is an article, its public. Obviously that was a violation of WP:OWN. If I violate any policies on articles e.g. consistently removing sourced material, then I can be warned for that. Thats perfectly ok. I think that was the only case where I got bothered a lot. I will say that one characteristic of disruptive users is that they are unable to see things other than from a personal-issue point of view i.e. - well you know what I mean. "You're editing this article because you want to attack me" - well thats not true. People should not read more into what is just there. I'm editing it because I want to make sure it complies with the site's standards. In any case though, disruptive users dont win in the end, without doubt. Thats it, I havent faced any other disruptive editors to complain about. I've also in my opinion been blocked too strongly and if there's anything such as disruptive adminship, maybe thats it. I got a month's long block for what. That was too long, for nothing. Thats it. Thats all the disruptive activity that I've faced and yes I'll call it disruptive because it was unfair. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to improve the quality of adminship around here. Thank you for expressing your concerns. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok great. Also wanted to add, that I wasnt looking for answers or debate on what I went through, but just wanted to give feedback since you asked. If you want to improve adminship quality and make admins think twice before they do something wrong, then a system to de-sysop them will keep them in line, really. That is the need of the day. Some people say trolls will misuse that system, well, no system is perfect but it can be very good. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Knights Templar

User:Elonka correctly tagged the article for cleanup and placed a prominent reminder on the talk page as talk page discipline has been poor there. There has been no improvement in 2 weeks, so I added a reminder to the talk page, particularly to the main contributor Paul McGowan some of whose comments are a little inappropriate e.g. "...debasing the cr*p" and and who I think caused you to tag the article for WP:COI? There has been no response. What would you suggest now? I have left a similar note on Elonka's talk page --Sannhet 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka resolution

Pls see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_articles_dispute_resolution_in_effect. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

About that couple of pints...

Posting here to avoid sidetracking Physchim's talk page. I agree that you have been reasonable and I don't see any "witch hunting" in your actions (I do see it in some other people's, though). I also acknowledge that you considered the situation for months, and not only for two hours. I don't have the slightest doubt of your good faith. In fact, I only have two complaints: 1) that you only gave two hours for people to post objections before blocking. Had you been more patient, consensus would have been clearer, Physchim62 might have been more reluctant to revert, and a lot of trouble might have been avoided. 2) That Sadi Carnot had no clear and unambiguous warning. I think that all reduces to a philosophical difference of opinion; I think you preferred to take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach (you said something like "I'll unblock him if he asks"), while I would have preferred a "warn first, shoot later" approach. --Itub 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's completely fair. My preference would be to create a common statement Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Resolution signed by the parties where we explain that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding and ask for the case to be closed. I think everyone has learned valuable lessons and that things will proceed more smoothly in the future.

For my own actions, the rapid block was related to our unclear banning policy. It was my understanding at the time that I needed to place an indefinite block in order to see if any administrator would propose unblocking. I think the policy should be clarified to say that an indef block does not need to be placed in order to begin a discussion, and that an objecting administrator does not need to unblock in order to prevent a ban from taking effect. That simple change would be a great help. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, know that I am doing what I can to reduce the temperature of this conflict: [3] - Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this (and other discussions), I'm going to refrain from working on the SC evidence until further notice; I like the direction this is headed. It's the policy that needs fixin'. (I'm not sure my old SC evidence is that much a part of the big picture anyway; it's the point that the policy needs clarification that concerns me and I'm not convinced from the Jimbo RfC that there is clear understanding of how big the problem is on Wiki.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I think we are going to proceed cooperatively with the case because it's all set up, and everybody would like Arbcom to clarify different points. Please do add you evidence because this may reduce the amount of disagreement. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kattankudy Mosque Massacre

Hi Jehochman, I would also be interested in getting your opinion regarding including some of the gory mosque massacre photos [4] as well. I have moved the images in question to the talk page for discussion. Thanks, Sinhala freedom 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually have one major personal weakness. I can't stand the sight of blood. Could you get somebody else to look at this? - Jehochman ^Talk 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete comment

Hi can you either complete or remove the half comment at the bottom of this? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for pointing that out. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Block Island Chronology Dispute

Hey, I feel like constantly reverting this person is almost futile, but at the same time I know their edits are ridiculous. I am reverting their edits one more time, but I don't plan on touching it again. I am fairly new to editing articles on wikipedia, so what exactly should we do about this? HebrewHammerTime 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert. Talk to them and see if we can explain why prose is better than a list. Also, ask what facts are missing or incorrect, and then request references. Offer to repair the prose to make it better. If you cannot reach an agreement, we have other options, such as WP:3O. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops- just saw this message not to revert after I already did. Well, that'll just be the last one then. I wish the person would get an account, it's difficult to talk to them except through the discussion page since they clearly have a dynamic IP (at least over time- last time this stuff came up it was slightly different) HebrewHammerTime 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I sense that this user can be reasonable. I think you should be especially polite and encourage them to request specific changes to your version instead of them reverting you. Keep trying to compromise. If that fails, I can resolve the situation by other means. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

help me

hi sir. I need your help for this discussion in my talk page. I realy don`t know we must have difinition word in the first word of articles or no?! then you have time if I`ll need any help ask from you? regards,--Gordafarid 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not so good with the manual of style. Usually I look at another article and copy the style already used. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

COI Nightmare..FYI

Hi Jonathan, I just left the same message for User:Durova. Just FYI.

I thought that this might be of interest for you. I am honestly getting tired of this sh**. WP:COI is a mess and used for everything against anybody. WP:COIN gets then slammed with all this and the end result are many upset editors and in too many cases ex-editors who just leave instead of coping with this BS. Cheers and happy reading.

--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Caesarjbsquitti soapboxing at talk feminism

Hi Jehochman, I hope things are going well for you. I'm dropping you a note because of repeated soapboxing by User:Caesarjbsquitti at talk feminism. I made an ANI post last night with diffs here. This behaviour from Caesarjbsquitti is disruptive and is a recurrence of the same from almost a year ago. I'd much obligied if you'd have a quick look. This user has not been template warned (as they are an experienced user) but cite policy has been pointed out to them 5 times (by 3 editors) in less than a week--Cailil ^talk 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Handled. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to this--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on stated facts, by verifiability

Hi stranger. A belated congratulations on the adminship! I had a question, and you've always been a good judge of this sort of thing for me previously. I was looking at this content dispute here, and an interesting question came up. If x number of sources say that something is true, but no reliable sources exist to counter that statement, is it safe to state that the something is true? It's an interesting question. We can't (as I understand it) put up counter-views without sourcing, and even when WP:FRINGE comes into play, even wacky theories, ideas, and purported facts need sourcing.

So, in short: if 10 reliable sources state a fact, but no reliable sources exist to counter that fact, can Example article state that "This is this."[1][2][etc.] until a valid counter-source arises? This is also assuming it is not a BLP of course. My question is specific to the Waterboarding article, after someone there raised this very question. I'm also very curious in general for understanding NPOV and verifiability's finer points, given that a handful of the articles I'm helping on now are borderline possible contentious territory. • Lawrence Cohen 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at our definition of undue weight. All prevalent views should be represented in proportion to their prevalence. Fringe views are not included at all. Does that illuminate the situation? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat, yes. What if you get into a questionable gray area? If someone in a position of expertise, for example, stating that x is y, but others in equally valid and strong positions of expertise say x is not y, just quietly note the contention (sourcing both viewpoints, and the different point of views) and move on without taking a stand in tone pro or con either? • Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You don't have to be quite either. You can say plainly that there are opposing views. Explain the different views, citing reliable sources. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll see if I can help sort out that mess there with this. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, a sockpuppet

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat also. I did it with Twinkle, not sure if that's the best way to do it. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have answered your question on my talk page. User_talk:Nick_Y.#Optional_question.--Nick Y. 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job maintaining GRB related pages

I'm impressed with the solidity of the GRB article and its children. The material covers the observational facts well and includes the broad consensus on the modelling. Well sourced indeed. I will keep an eye out for this article. Let's hope it will achieve featured status :) Regards, 82.72.87.196 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Need 2nd eye here, you said you'd help. I am convinced the new account is a sock of netmonger and should be blocked, including netmonger, what do you think? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sockpuppet. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were online, so I made my call. Thanks anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just stepped out for lunch, but will have a look now. I'll be in and out today.- Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, see the page. Our first of the peace effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

proposed interim ban

My patience with you has run out. This edit is entirely inappropriate, as are many of your comments on the arbitration page. As such, I have requested to the Committee that you be banned for an interim period from editing Wikipedia, except for this page and for the pages of the arbitration. This does not affect my belief that you acted in good faith in blocking Sadi Carnot, however wrong I feel that that decision was. I simply believe that your judgement is such that you should not have the power to use administrative tools. It is your own actions which have lead me to this, dispite the fact the we have been able to co-operate on other dispute resolution. The matter is now in the hands of the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked Nick Y. a question because I wanted to recommend that he look at our admin coaching program, but I had a concern he apparently used a previous identity. I wanted clarification before making that suggestion. P62, you need to assume good faith and ask me to explain things when you don't understand what's going on, instead of assuming the worst. You're obviously under a lot of stress, but if you just relax, you'll see that everything will turn out alright. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, Gracious!

I certainly hope that your faith in Lin Shukun does not turn out to be misplaced.Kww 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is, there is no harm done in being nice. You see how I was nice to Sadi Carnot twice before. Watch how the case resolves. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka related

See here and here. Is this acceptable ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. Hopefully the editor will adjust. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Establishing Notability/COI issues for article

Hello; I'm trying to clean up COI issues and establish notability for Road_&_Travel_Magazine. I left a note on the discussion page citing a source about 10 days ago, but I'm not sure how to proceed next, as there's been no response. Thanks very much for any tips. Erikd7 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You could post a notice at the conflict of interest noticeboard and ask for help. That should work. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I will do that. Erikd7 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)