User talk:Jehochman

Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page.

User:Jnelson09 and User:Sottolacqua

Hi - I saw you recently contributed to Sottolacqua's request for editor assistance. I've asked Jnelson09 to show the edit he considers vandalism, and I actually disagree with him and think that the section removed by Sottolacqua was not encyclopaedic. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this. The discussion on Jnelson09's talk page contains the bulk of the details and the edit in question is here: [1]. Many thanks, Howie ☎ 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation tool?

I see you have something about a new citation tool on your userpage. How does it work, does it add a new tab to the top of wiki pages like Twinkle, with a dropdown selection of citation templates or something? Cirt (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a Firefox add-on. When viewing a web page the you'd like to cite, right click on the page, select WPCITE, and a little window opens with the cite code. Then copy and paste into Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! That is really neat, thank you so much for developing this! So it works with the template {{cite web}} primarily? Cirt (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We could program additional options, but it is easy enough to tweak the output by hand if you would like a different cite template, or to add other fields. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation tool for Wikinews?

Is there a way that a similar Citation tool could be developed like this for Wikinews? Over there the primary source template used is {{source|url=|title=|author=|pub=|date=}} - for example as used at n:3000 homeless after fire breaks out in Chad refugee camp. Only if you have a chance - I know this would really be useful at Wikinews because we rely quite heavily on online sources, and a lot of people would really appreciate it - just that we use a different form of source-template. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Transparency: ArbCom and Oversight Process

Not knowing to whom I should pose this administrative question, I thought that I would turn to you. I notice that User:PHG was blocked for one week with the "strong encouragement" that he find a mentor. I don't disagree with the suggestion (it will likely do the user some good), but I notice that "encouragement" is not exactly the same as directly ordering a user to do something.

For my own edification, what should happen if the user (or any user) simply ignored the Arbcom's "encouragement" at the end of this one-week block and proceeded to edit as if nothing had happened (a reasonable assumption based on the user's history)? In terms of administrative process, what would happen? J Readings (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If they managed to self-correct past problems, they could happily continue editing. However, if they were to repeat past mistakes, which seems likely since PHG denies having made any mistakes, the result may be a series of rapidly escalating blocks. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. J Readings (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article Megalithic yard restored

User:Little sawyer has restored the article Megalithic yard. I think you have some information about his history and posts under a different name.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no feelings about this article. If there is some sort of abusive sock puppetry, please file a report. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been deleted now anyway.Doug Weller (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

Hi. I have added some comments to a recent sockpuppet report on Rafaelsfingers.

I note from your checkuser report that you did not ask for a check against Rafaelsfingers and supergreenred - maybe you should put those together with the IPs, as it may be that Sky really is in Taiwan - in which case there may still be a sockpuppetmaster in San Fransisco, where I think both Rafael and Supergreen are editing from.

As for Aho Aho, if you feel he is a sockpuppet then sky may warrant a further remedy, as the AA account has continued to edit even after Sky was originally blocked for sockpuppeting. John Smith's (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This report is a tangled mess, but I will pull it apart one thread at a time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to be more helpful in how I've structured my comments. John Smith's (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you look into edit-warring? Only if you have the time there's a 3RR report on supergreenred for reverting four times in 24 hours 9 minutes. I believe that is grounds for a block. See here. John Smith's (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Controlled demo lead

Hi Jehochman, sorry about that unnecessary edit of your revert. I thought I was editing the version you had just reverted. I know it has been discussed before, but it would be good if you and others briefly state your opinon (in favour of A) here so that the consensus can be easily identified for next time. While I lean to B, I don't mind A. If consensus is for A, I'll take it upon myself to point B-ers in the direction of the poll. Best--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad call

Per the evidence on this page, it is an implausible coincidence for these three accounts, supporting each other and the same idiosyncratic point of view, to be located in such a narrow geographic region while editing the same narrow set of articles. If hat's the crucial point leading to an indefblock of Giovanni33, I must say that leaving out the crucial fact that the "idiosyncratic POV" is US=massive terrorist ringleader, the "narrow set of articles"=those articles which imply the US is a massive terrorist ringleader and the "narrow geographical area is San Francisco!! does strengthen your argument a bit. Put it in, and your argument fails, I'm afraid. Not that I am particularly upset if Giovanni has gone, but if you think that every IP/ account in future (or in the past!) editing with that POV from Northern California is a sockpuppet of G33, we are going to see a hell of a lot of false positives. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Please point out a few of these false positives. I spent many hours scouring the data. Show me anything to indicate that these accounts are in any way distinguishable from one another. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you're the blocker, you do that, why don't you?

I merely read your rationale and pointed out one enormous bloody hole in it. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. I looked for false positives or any feature that would distinguish these accounts, and there was none to be found. The unpleasant situation is that we had a user with a history of exactly this sort of problem with a set of circumstances, reported by users in good standing, that exactly matched sock puppetry. I had to make a difficult judgment call per all the available information, and the conclusion was a finding of sock puppetry. I have invited checkusers, and others, to review the report. Everything is available for inspection and comment. Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything except any actual evidence. As I point out again, you haven't demonstrated anything except that we have a bunch of accounts from San Francisco who edit a particular set of articles with a POV that is hardly unusual or rare in that geographical area. I hope you realise that some similarities in editing should ideally be presented. If you spent a few hours examining this already, it shouldn't be too much extra work. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush, of course; if you feel unwilling to plod through it again I'll just post it at AN and see if anyone is willing to review it. The SPA blocks are no problem, but the long-term account needed more rationale than was provided. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Three administrators have endorsed the block. You are the lone opposition. See below, as well as the SSP report talk page and the unblock denial on the user's talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately what I've seen isn't helpful. WMC talks about the SPA block. The unblock request on the user's talkpage is extremely disturbing; there's no examination of your rationale at all, only an assumption its correct. That's not good procedure. And the SSP talkpage... well, I've asked Krimpet to weigh in again. The point remains, this block has been made on the assumption that nobody else in Northern California would edit like this account on this subject, and that's a completely unjustifiable assumption. If there's something else that you saw and that I'm not seeing, please do tell me. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I like Giovanni, I would agree that he is using sockpuppets. For example, with only about 20 edits to his name, Supergreenred removes John Smiths comments from his talk page here, something which Giovanni habitually does. In the next edit John Smith notes the obvious: [2]. John Smith was Gio's opponent in the arbcom case and they have a long history. Another possibility: Gio's opponents are setting him up by creating socks that look like him. Entirely possible, and very easy to do, so there is some ambiguity. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the unblock Jehochman - that was very fair minded of you. I really doubt those were socks of Giovanni given the style of writing - and what would have been a very sloppy method of socking by a former sockpuppeter. Perhaps other admins will review the situation, but I think the evidence was too weak for an indef block (though as I said on AN/I it's easy to see why you would have come to a different conclusion and decided on the block).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The report was complex and there were actually quite a few socks involved. It seems that Giovanni33 may have been an innocent bystander who got caught in the dragnet because of his history. Jehochman ^Talk 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That may have been the case; you're right, the original report was very complex. Either way, I think eyes are on G33 now. Thank you for reconsidering. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look at additional evidence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rafaelsfingers#Additional_evidence Ultramarine (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bsharvy_(2nd)

I am sorry, but you closed the SSP recommending WP:DE, which I am not debating. But if the community follows your recommendation it leads to ANI, which you yourself called "A place that fuels drama". Is it no advisable that parties conserned should pursue their conserns at WP:RFC/U. Igor Berger (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call

Re [3] and the rest: thanks. It will help a lot; indeed it already has William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Togepi_987#Blocked

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This Barnstar is given for quick and valiant action against a vandal who has harassed many a fine editor. Kudos! Bearian (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wooo! I don't have on of these yet. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I issued him a final warning, but he didn't seem to heed it. Fully support your block, and endorse the above barnstar. If you have a "gallery" of those things, add another one from me ;) (Yes, I'm serious). Btw, don't forget the NotTheWikipediaWeekly tomorrow evening! Anthøny 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues raised by Ultramarine

Ultramarine makes some interesting points on Rafael's talk page. Wanted to let you know in case you missed them. John Smith's (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rafaelsfingers

If he is to be considered for unblocking, surely he needs to admit to his sockpuppetry and disclose all accounts/IPs/etc that he has been using. Though, as I mention above, Ultramarine feels that there is new evidence that points to Giovanni being the puppeteer, rather than Rafael (which would make Rafael a sock). John Smith's (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we unblock them and they really are socking, we will be able to watch them and gather evidence to make an indefinite block stick. Unblocking is a win-win situation. I am probably going to unblock unless they give me a reason not to. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the puppetmaster decides to leave Rafael as a sleeper to start causing trouble when everyone's forgetten about this? At the very least you should insist on disclosure - otherwise it's encouraging people to abuse sockpuppets because they'll assume they won't be punished (much) for it. John Smith's (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Raphael's block log will make sure nobody forgets this incident. You'll notice that I put the SSP report link into the block log. Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So are you going to insist on disclosure? I think it's only fair. Also there's the outstanding point on Ultramarine's comments on Giovanni. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets assume good faith and focus on article content instead of negative speculations of editors, who are not being disruptive but cooperative and helpful. WP is not a place to fight battles against editors and try to get opponents blocked, or banned. Lets all give these editors a full assumption of good faith and let their actions be their judge, not their ideological opponents. Jehochman has shown integrity and qualities of impartiality with regard to his good faith blocks and unblocks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you can't use good faith to avoid potential restrictions - otherwise no one would ever get blocked. If you really are using sockpuppets again then that would lead to an auto-ban. John Smith's (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Iantresman

I'd like to ask your advice, because I think you're familiar with procedures related to sockpuppets. I'm inclined to remove a suspected sockpuppet template from User:Iantresman's userpage. The suspected sockpuppet reports (first , second) didn't find conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry. The template was placed on the user page on April 10, around the time of filing the second suspected sockpuppet report, by ScienceApologist. I proposed on Iantresman's talk page removing the sockpuppet template and no one has objected. Would I be violating any policy or usual procedure if I were to delete the template? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the tag should stay. One of the suspected socks was IDed by checkuser previously. I have removed a few of the suspects that have not been supported by evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Among those suspected sockpuppets of Iantresman is Applecola. If there is no need for my "An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Iantresman" tag, then why is he blocked indefinitely as an Iantresman sockpuppet? Seems inconsistent. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Grrr. This is why I dislike private Checkuser requests. Things should be in the open so we can link to them. That way the admin who wanders into a situation six months later can actually figure out what happened! Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Oh. I was going to say, if the tag stays, then could there be a link to the evidence? But I don't understand about the private checkuser request. Couldn't there at least be a link to a statement that there was a private checkuser request? The sockpuppet reports are rather confusing -- they don't clearly sum up the conclusions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser for Applecola was ruled unnecessary because Raul654 had blocked him in the meantime. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman Art LaPella (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh -- do you know which suspected sock was IDed by checkuser? not Applecola, I gather. If you still oppose removing the template from User:Iantresman, Jehochman, would you please fix it to have a link to the evidence and a link to a list of suspected sockpuppets for which there is some evidence? As it is at the moment it's rather confusing. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tsyko. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop. I don't know why Coppertwig linked Jehochman's removal of the tag from User talk:Applecola. That was only because it duplicated the tag at User:Applecola, which he has now restored. However, my previous comment agrees that CheckUser wasn't used on Applecola, to my knowledge. Both Applecola and Tsyko remain blocked as sockpuppets to evade a ban, which seems inconsistent with Coppertwig's assertion [4] that Iantresman has done nothing wrong. Art LaPella (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tsyko (talk · contribs) was a obvious sleeper sock who appeared at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist with a grudge against ScienceApologist. I made an on-wiki request at the RfArb workshop to checkuser the account against Iantresman, since it seemed pretty obvious, but the request languished. Ultimately I asked Raul654 to look at it, since socks of banned users who disrupt ArbCom cases are A Bad Thing. Raul654 confirmed that Iantresman==Tsyko (though proxying for a banned user didn't stop Martinphi from reinserting Ian's "evidence", but that's another story).

Anyhow, I requested the checkuser. Tsyko is a sockpuppet used by Iantresman to evade his ban and carry on his grudge against ScienceApologist in an ArbCom case. The sockpuppetry was confirmed by Raul654 via checkuser. Any impression that Iantresman "has done nothing wrong" is an incorrect one. MastCell ^Talk 03:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether there's a misunderstanding. On what do you base the statement that there was a checkuser performed on Tsyko? Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman says that no checkuser was performed because Tsyko had already been blocked. By the way, the reason I posted the link to Jehochman removing the Applecola sockpuppet template was that the edit summary said "no evidence". I don't understand how or why Art LaPella posted a message above at 03:24 stating that Jehochman had restored the template, when Jehochman didn't restore the template until 03:57, but maybe that's not important. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also wondering whether anyone has specific information as to why Iantresman was indefinitely banned in the first place. I'm looking for something useful: specific enough that the user has the option of changing his behaviour in future. Just saying that there was "disruption", for example, is not much use IMO because it gives little or no information on what the user would have to do differently. It has to be described in objective terms so it can be understood by people who might not (at first) consider such behaviour to be problematic. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Socking while banned is reason enough to keep the ban in effect until the user identifies all the accounts they have used and vows to stop socking. I suggest you stop acting as an advocate in multiple venues, and let Iantresman speak for themselves. This conversation on my talk page is over. I had nothing to do with the original ban. Please address your concerns to ArbCom. Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)well, I answered on Copper's talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

Thanks for offering to help. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but any good directions would be much appreciated. To sum up my concerns:

I've been working on the Criticisms of capitalism page. Understanding that it's a contentious issue, but with some knowledge to (hopefully) share, I arrived at the page and found it to be in complete shambles. The text was incoherent, point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint arguments with shotgun facts/opinions thrown around. Looking at the talk page it was obvious that a long dipsute in early-2007 either scared away or disheartened a number of editors and now there was one editor left (User:Ultramarine). In any case, I set about to (essentially) rewrite the article, taking special care to cite all of my entries. In order to keep the article non-contentious, my idea was to give historical background, focusing on critics who have been the most influential and working towards the modern day. I didn't have some anti-corporate agenda, or plan to play up some big capitalist conspiracy, I just wanted to provide a coherent description of the subject matter with attention on history and current thought (something an encyclopedia does, right?). So I didn't think it would be a problem... UNTIL I made my first edit. Within the hour, 10 edits were made in quick succession.[5] This continued for a couple of days as I continued editing. Ultramarine's philosophy was to delete/revert first and ask questions later -- not very inviting for someone relatively new to the Wikipedia project. A number of nitpitcky arguments arrived on the talk page that were borderline asinine. Fortunately, I have thick skin so I stuck around. But the constant (I can't think of a better word) harrassment wore thin and I took a break from the article for a couple of weeks. I returned, Ultramarine was still at it, and I had had enough.

ANYWAYS, if you've read through that description you can see where I'm coming from. In terms of community building, Ultramarine is not (I keep using this term) "inviting". What do I do? Thanks again. Uwmad (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First, brush up by reading WP:OWN. That page may contain useful tips on how to deal with an editor who acts as if they own an article. Articles aren't owned, but sometimes people forget. Tomorrow I will look at this in greater detail. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I read WP:OWN and it describes UM's actions perfectly. As someone mentioned on the Wikiquette page, it could also be a case of incivility and WP:OR. Also, Ultramarine believes that the page violates WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK. His/her intention is to add a counterargument to every entry on the page. There's currently a discussion on the talk page here. Let me mention that I'm not interested in edit warring and that I tend to assume good intentions. I've typically just let the counter-edits slide (usually after a drawn out dicsusion on the talk page in which I concede the fact that the discussion will lead nowhere). I've only edited a couple of pages and am fairly new to this process. I learned about Wikipedia from the newspaper and was excited at the prospect of a community-generated encyclopedia. But having seen this process first-hand, I can safely say that actions like these can be very harmful to the project; weeding out mainstream (majority) people and leaving a very polarized base. Uwmad (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pick four articles in four completely different areas. This will help you learn about how things work and make friends. A majority of articles are peaceful and polite. Do not become disillusioned. With millions of articles, a few are bound to be duds. Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Homeopathy/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/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PHG

Excellent point regarding the sockpuppetry. I'm afraid I won't be able to file a report until much later this evening, though... Kafka Liz (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, PHG has developed a reputation for tendentiousness, and argumentativeness. Under ordinary circumstances, such IP socking would not be credible, but in this situation, it deserves scrutiny. I am not sure the evidence is strong enough for a block, but at minimum we can shine light on the issue and discourage future socking. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing?

Dear Jehochman, {{subst:Contentious topics/alert|topic=9/11}}  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)