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.

In the spirit of chipetting... El_C

Yes.

Yes, refusing to justify actions transparently IS the issue. That is PRECISELY the issue (at least, insofar as privacy and/or copyright is used as a smokescreen) that I was trying to address in that paragraph - why not reword it instead of deleting?—Random832 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Just left a message to that effect on the talk page. Give it another go. This is WP:BRD in action. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WPCITE extension

Hi Jehochman,

I've just been collating citation tools links together (see [1] and [2]), and I notice that the link on your user page and the link given here (Diff) are different. Furthermore, md5sum says the XPIs on each page are actually different. Would you mind clarifying which one is the latest version/official version so I choose the correct/best link? Thanks! 124.148.105.71 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

the one on my userpage. I need to update the other one - Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Link fixed. 124.148.105.71 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

NSF image permissions

Hi, I saw that an image that you uploaded from the NSF was recently nominated at FPC. I read their Copyright and Reuse of Graphics and Text policy and they grant permission for use on a case by case basis. Did you contact them for permission or have any other information regarding use of NSF graphics on Wikipedia? Please add this info to the image discription page if you do. If not, then let me know and I'll contact them and request permission. Thanks, Cacophony 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've responded over there. Thanks for notifying me. I don't usually watch those pages. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration: notification

I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to the discussion there, concerning indefinite blocks, I was reminded of this block log. An indefinite block ended up at arbitration and ended up as a ban for one year. This reinforces my feeling that certain parts of the community of admins are moving too quickly to apply indefinite blocks in cases where ArbCom would only apply a long ban. Before applying an indefinite block, the question should be asked: "What sanctions would ArbCom apply in this case?" The problem really is that many admins pull "indefinite block" out of the hat because they are used to blocking vandals indefinitely and then walking away and forgetting about it. In complex cases, involving non-vandal editors, a long community ban might be more appropriate than an indefinite block. I agree with you that this all needs to be discussed further at WT:BLOCK. I think the first step might be reviewing what you added (the quote at WP:RFARB). Shall I start the discussion there, or do you want to? I'll probably end up cutting and pasting what I wrote at the request for arbitration. Carcharoth 22:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest letting somebody else make the first move to overhaul that policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I suspect the arbitration case will result in a need for such an overhaul by the community anyway. Waiting another month or so won't break the bank. I'm also sympathetic to your point that you were only commenting from the sidelines as a non-admin at the time, I hope the arbitrators will take that into account. About the policy, I wouldn't overhaul the policy itself - I was merely suggesting starting discussion on the talk page. I'm well aware that some people take a far stricter view on how quickly one should escalate to indefinite blocking. Carcharoth 11:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova (talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I just wanted you to know that, as I say in ANI, I already told Physchim62 here about the ANI. I wouldn't open a debate about his supposed misuse without informing him first! However, it seems until now he has made some contributions but no answer... let's wait...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I have adjusted my comment to PS62 accordingly.^[3] - Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for information I notified Physchim immediately after posting to ANI and before notifing Hesperian Gnangarra 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Admin discretion - a response to part of your evidence in that case. Carcharoth 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A note, since you seem most visibly concerned by Charles' edits. A couple days ago, Carcharoth asked him to take a break and I asked him to tone it down. (See User talk:Charles Matthews#Take a break from that case?.) Either he took Carcharoth's advice or real life intervened, but he has no contributions or logged tool use since late his time on the 3rd. This probably should be considered in evaluating that he hasn't refactored yet. He may be on a cool down break. GRBerry 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. There's a note on the Arbcom clerks board that Charles is taking a break. If you think I should withdraw any of my remarks, please let me know. I don't plan to say anything else about the matter for now. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Big5Hunter

Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I found your post in my archive. A number of other posts followed yours in rapid succession, and I failed to respond to you before the thread was archived, due to other events taking up my attention. I am going to investigate this, and will let you have an answer shortly. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now confirmed via checkuser that this IP and the Big5Hunter account are both sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user Polygamist4x. No further action is required. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

John Indian

Jon, if I may, can you tell me if the deleted article on John Indian only contains the line shown in the deletion log, 'John Indian was the husband of Tituba' or if it contains more, and if it contains more do you mind userifying it for me? Dureo 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

forgive me I clicked a wrong link somewhere and coulda sworn the admint hat deleted it was retired, but he appears to not be so I will ask him, thanks. ;P Dureo 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Its Pytch.. Hon

Hey Jehochman, thanks for your comments. Only problem is most socks seem to be operating, I'd need to warn them all. I've asked User:Alison to have a look, she's a Checkuser, so I'll see what she has to say. The list is becoming quite substantial!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

SEO panel

I spoke on a panel about Social Media yesterday hosted by the SIIA. They're hosting a panel in Feburary about search engine optimization. They're interested in having someone from Wikipedia, and you were the first person I thought of. If you want to do it, contact Jeffrey Cutler: jeffcutler at yahoo.com. Raul654 (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've sent him an email. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock block thingy

Jehochman, thanks for alerting me to this. I have no problem with reblocking Kelpin for 1 second to note that the initial block was a mistake, but I won't be able to get to it until later today. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ECW500

Well it turns out there are a few sleeper accounts that turned up in the checkuser:

• Darren Gregory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nina Eve Slabber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lindi James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hippies Little Brother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can you block those? The request for ECW500 was stale, so it is unclear as to whether JB196 or ECW500 is behind this. But I'm willing to assume that the sockpuppeteer is User:ECW500 based on the (not so creative) usernames of his sockpuppets. This fellow's IP address' have been blocked as well:

• 137.158.190.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.245.164.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And as I suspected all along, but added in as a clear party involved, User:SilentRage is not connected to these accounts whatsoever. — Save_Us_229 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad. He seemed like a good user who got mixed up. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Protecting page

Although I agree that the editwarring was uncalled for, I don't think you should protect usertalk of a user who has been inactive for 3 days. Suva Чего? 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am hopeful that the user will become active again. Should he request unprotection of the page, I will immediately do so. In fact, I am sending him an email at this very moment to ask for his input. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question.

Hello. I believe your latest protection of Ghirlas user page may be influenced by a bias. Could you please(I'm being polite here, see!)explain yourself. Otherwise I am inclined to suspect that your are abusing your admin privileges to help a friend make a point, ie making it clear that I have no right to wish happy days to Ghirla where ever he is... --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an edit war involving multiple parties. The target was a user talk page belonging to an inactive user. Therefore, protection was the least harmful and most appropriate way to stop the edit war. In the future, discuss your differences rather than edit warring. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good answer:) I like it. I had no intention do do any more reverts btw. The whole thing had become very silly. But, could you please explain to me, HOW does one convince another person to allow you to post a well wishing message to another users user page? Or can one just go and remove messages from inactive users and its fine?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you talk to Bishonen (talk · contribs) and Irpen (talk · contribs) you may be able to resolve your differences. I hope so. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, and add that perhaps you should talk to them by email rather than on-wiki. I know nothing of the situation, but I find it hard to see how the dispute between yourself an the other two editors could be better resolved on-wiki than off. This seems to be a private matter, in every sense of the term. Physchim62 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AAh, but when I try to take it off wiki, ie IRC I may be accused of trying to hide something or wikilawyering or worse... Been there, done that. Besides, Its done. I tried to be nice and truthful. And all that resulted was a tempest in a teacup. Really. Removing others comments should not be OK. But alas, thus is life. May sun shine on to the lives of you all.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and generous comment :) Physchim62 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If a user is inactive, Alexia Death, you do not get to write something demoralizing in the wiki-sense yet somehow excuse that with real-life well-wishes and a couple of emoticons. I have removed the protection. Do not continue to add that "I cant say I will join in on the I wait you back thing. It has been quiet [sic.] past few months," or you will be blocked from editing without further warning. El_C 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me make clear the rules. If you are a content opponent of an inactive users whom others are attempting to persuade to return, you are not permitted to write, or revert, negative comments. In fact, you should limit interactions with said users to concrete content issues only. El_C 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And a link to these rules is...? Or is it yet another Durova-style-ruleset? -- Sander Säde 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A link to these rules? Are you kidding me? Do not wikilawyer around common sense. El_C 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So these are "Durova-style" rules! LOL. I cant take Wikipedia seriously any more. This is ridiculous! --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is little left to add to what El_C have said, just a note on protection. Only worst trolls get their talk pages protected. This happens when they use it for hate speech after being blocked and for no other reason. This harassment has to be dealt with by dealing directly with the problematic users while protecting the page is the wrong solution. Also, if you bothered to check, Ghirla is not exactly inactive. He shows up once in a while making a small edit or two. So, a two-week protection was very much uncalled for. --Irpen 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment that may seem overly harsh to Jehochman. I am not to say that Jehochman did anything improper. He tried to stop harassment too, just in a different way. Obviously taking a stand against talk page harassment is a right thing to do. --Irpen 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I wrote an email to Ghirlandajo and told him about the incident, and offered to remove protection immediately if he requested. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

GREAT! Now he gets to see my well intended comment anyway, he cant miss it now! The whole reverting and protection thing is effectively made null and void... Eeh. You guys could do with little sunshine in your lives...--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)