User talk:Jehochman

User talk:Jehochman/Archive index

Thank you

Hello Jehochman, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For [1] Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You aren't stupid

So you should not have written this [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Only tangentially relevant, but: It seems quite clear to me that Roger Davies meant to say something like "[...] about ownership of many accounts there's no dispute", and in trying to turn this into idiomatic English came up with a sentence that said something else. Hans Adler 21:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 User:Jehochman is not magic pixie dust. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor, indeed, should you have said that. In case this isn't clear: I was pointing out that CU had been used as magic pixie dust to tar PG2 to accounts that are nothing to do with him. This is a position that in the past you yourself have noted and been in favour of. Had PG been treated properly - ie, told what he was actually accused of by the blocking admin instead of being carelessly templeted and then carelessly denied talk page access - all this could have been sorted out with far less fuss. What are your thoughts on the matter? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A second pair of eyes

Hi Jehochman, hope all's well with you. Do you remember User:LemonMonday? Well he's back again and he's made some sort of claim about misconduct on my part[3][4] (thread here[5]). Can you look it (sorry about the length) I've already warned him for WP:BATTLE and WP:OTHERPARENT[6] and I want another pair of eyes on his conduct subsequent[7][8].
I did inform TFOWR of this earlier but was before LemonMonday's response. PS can you give me a sanity check on my warnings to MickMacNee in that thread too (I'm open to an old-fashioned trout slappig if I'm wrong)--Cailil ^talk 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're probably away but when you get a chance this needs a quick look. Recent edits from LemonModay really take the biscuit[9] and the whole darn cookie jar[10][11][12][13][14]. As far as I'm concerned he's over the line re: WP:BATTLE but because he's accused me and others who are working to enforce the community probation in this area of some spurious misconduct I'd like outside input on it. And again I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just walk away. Let him get really bad until we can issue an indef block. I don't like placing short blocks. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for looking at it--Cailil ^talk 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Enough

Template:Enough has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You have done the very best thing to make sure this template is widely known and used. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thing That Should Not Be

What's this about? Wrong user? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to give me a minute to type out a thoughtful block message. The message explains things. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a bit unnecessary considering the time since the last edits (and this user doesn't have a history of not being responsive). Should have brought this up before blocking imo -shrug- - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, anybody who posts a message with an edit summary including "User {username} gets fucked up the ass" should be blocked first, and questioned later. You'd need to look at their deleted contributions to see what I saw. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a look at the edits in question, but considering this was a day ago, there's no need for a block. Not really anyway, if the problem is the edit summaries: Blocking will stop that until the issue is resolved and the user unblocked. Equally, leaving the user a friendly reminder will stop it until the issue is resolved. So no real need for a block. Anyway, maybe we should see about getting Twinkle changed to allow the user to not include the title (or even to do this automatically for G10), but still warn (in the mean time users can simply select the option to not warn at all, and then leave a manual warning if need be). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If we agree, for the sake of argument, that there was no rush to block, there is also not rush to unblock. This is an alternative account, autoblock is turned off, and the user seems to only use it sporadically. I am trying to be circumspect and not leave messages all over the user's main account talk page, as this appears to be a case of unintentional disruption. Because the alternative account is only used sporadically, I needed a way to stop the activity until we are sure it won't happen again. Yes, I agree that Twinkle should be improved that that it is not unintentionally used to further harassment. This may even be one of the troll's objectives, to get their harassment messages spread via Twinkle, and to get innocent (but clueless) users in trouble. Finally, there is an issue that the alternative account's username is bad, because it strongly suggests that the user is violating Wikipedia policy. We regularly soft block usernames like User:Vandal. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not rushing to unblock, as you say there's no point to rush it now that the user is blocked. Also, I agree that the edits were disruptive, I also agree that the disruption was caused unintentionally. Therefore all the needs to be done is bring the disruption to the user's attention. Something which the block no doubt does ;), but which I personally feel could have been done just as effectively with a friendly talk page notice. Anyway, I talked to The Thing on IRC, and he's happy to manually warn for pages with attack titles. I don't really see a problem with the username - the account is clearly indicated to be an alternate account. In-fact, the username helps to do this, although maybe "The Thing alt. acct." or similar would be less likely to be mistaken for an abusive use of alternate accounts, using "sock" isn't likely to throw users off - as it is clear the account is not an abusive sock. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't immediately clear to me that this wasn't an abusive account. Quite the contrary! Only after I dug into the matter did I conclude that it was a legitimate alternate account. If the careless Twinkling had been the only issue, I would not have blocked. The combined effect of the bad acts and the bad username tipped the scales for me. Since you have secured an agreement, I will unblock now, but do tell the user to get that username changed to something that does not look like a troll account. User:The Other Thing That Should Not Be might be a good one. It's also disruptive to have a username that makes people get very concerned every time they see it. We have hundreds of active administrators. The first time each one sees this account they should not have to spend a few minutes investigating to determine that the account is acceptable. That's a lot of wasted effort. Ask him to pick a username that doesn't generate false positives! Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:The_sock_that_should_not_be, his unblock request seems to also deal with the issue of the account name. So all should be well. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about renaming my alternate account again, because it's been renamed an inordinate amount of times already. Are you sure the 'crats won't complain if I request yet another rename? The sock that should not be (talk)

I am not a bureaucrat, and I'm not sure what they'll say, but I think if you point them to this conversation and ask politely, they will not be upset with you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And a 'crat has rejected the request. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As it's User:The Thing That Should Not Be's alternate account, an unintended autoblock to The Thing's account might occur (unless you already know it's the alternate account). mechamind90 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock disabled. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I only use this on public networks/terminals, I never use my main account anywhere outside my home, or a relative I'm visiting, unless the network I'm using is a trusted wireless network protected with WPA, and I'm using my personal laptop, as is the case with my school's wireless connection. Unless it's a rangeblock of the entire school, my main account should not be affected by any blocks made to my alternate. The sock that should not be (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced

Resuming this discussion. I would like an explanation of what exactly you thought was "disruptive" because I see no logical reason for this block whatsoever. Not only that, your unblock message even confirmed that you thought it was disruptive, and it was not an accident. Such a statement is not to be made lightly. So either one of two things is going on here, either (1) you are not willing to admit that you made a mistake, or (2) you really think something was disruptive here. If it's the former, well, that's a problem, and if it's the latter, then I really need some indication of what exactly you think was disruptive. Unblocking doesn't just "make everything go away", especially with a message like that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the conversation above. If you don't think posting edit summaries or comment that include severe sexual harassment is disruptive, we'll just have to disagree. Twinkle or other automation is not responsible for the content of edits; the user is. What action do you want at this time? Jehochman ^Talk 10:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I read it, and I think that Twinkle is the fastest way to get rid of those pages. The edit summaries can always be deleted later. Do you really think it's disruptive to mark the page for deletion in the fastest manner possible? I don't. Then again, one of my very first edits did the exact same thing. What would I prefer? An unblock message that had said you made a mistake, not one that implies the user understood what was done wrong. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment location

Was there a reason behind posting this comment on his userpage rather than his talkpage? Useight (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The alternative account talk page used to redirect to the main account. I very much wanted to handle this quietly so as not to tarnish the main accounts reputation, as I saw they were an admin hopeful. Jehochman ^Talk 10:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

?

Was unblocking G.C in order to comment at ANI a good idea? Some people like TR might see this as a double-standard. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to pre-empt Jehochman but G.C is under discussion for a full permament/indef site-ban. If that were raised vis-a-vis TR I'd unblock him. Similarly if he was being brought to ArbCom. TR's situation is different he's blocked and restricted not site-banned. Just my 2c anyway--Cailil ^talk 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)