User talk:Jehochman

Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page. Remember Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Coachees, see User talk:Jehochman/Coaching. The curse jar: for incivility on this page, please add an inline reference to gamma ray burst or SS Edmund Fitzgerald.

Acid attack

Could you give this thread and the second paragraph of this section an overview for me (see also this diffs[1]). Am concerned that this issue may need to go to the Ethnic conflicts group - but I would like to prevent it from escalating that far. I asked User:Coren to look at this weeks ago, they have ignored my post.

Could you also look at this edit and the source it purports to reflect - looks to me like it has serious weight issues as well as needing to be rephrased. What do think? Am I wrong here?

I'm sorry to bug you with this but I am swamped in real life - I'm also in need of a second pair of eyes to double check what I'm saying here--Cailil ^talk 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Cailil, this thread eluded me during a busy few days. Is the matter still pendant? Jehochman ^Arrr! 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That RfA

You said "This RFA had the most cynical vote stacking I have ever seen." I noticed this at WJBScribe's talk page. It caught my interest, so I'm off to have a look. Have you said more about this elsewhere, or is it something better e-mailed? Carcharoth (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I see now. The oppose section is a mess, and the talk page has lots. That's enough for me to see roughly what is going on. Carcharoth (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Aside from the Cirt fracas, there has been long term socking and disruption at Landmark Education and related articles. That, I think, is a more serious problem that may need following up. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good conflict resolution

Sorry if this sounds condescending or partisan, but I'd like to congratulate you, Jonathan, for reaching out to bury past conflict and move forward positively, here and here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is very important not to prolong disputes beyond their natural end. Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Now if only someone could bottle that splendid attitude and sell it! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd Edit (Oddit?)

Hi. Thank you. I noticed that, it's weird indeed... 'twas caused by some Internet telephony (JAJAH) plug-in I am not using. I switched it off and now it seems to work. :) — N-true (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Essay thoughts

I am thinking about starting an essay, Wikipedia:No personal umbrage (to go with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The idea is that people should not take personal offense at criticisms that are meant for the good of the project. We have too many editors who get upset about a perceived insult long ago and nurse disagreements until they become feuds. Then they try to find friends to support them, and eventually we have battling factions causing mayhem hither and thither. What do my talk page lurkers think about this idea? Jehochman ^Talk 00:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Though you might need a definition of umbrage for those who have not encountered that word before. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't umbridge in the last Harry Potter film? BMW(drive) 17:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CyberLink

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#CyberLink Corp. (permanent link) for the original discussion. Jehochman ^Arrr! 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CyberLink Corp.

Hi Jehochman

Dude! I noticed you deleted CyberLink's corporate profile off Wikipedia. Surely that doesn't actually count as advertising? For that to be a possibility one would have to delete Adobe or Microsoft too? How can we resolve this?

Thanks

Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjon (talk • contribs) 11:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• CyberLink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The problem wasn't notability. The problem was that the entire article was written like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not for advertising. It is not the role of our volunteers to rewrite advertising material submitted by corporate agents.[2] If you would like to work on the article, feel free to recreate it, but do not do so if you are affiliated with the company in any way, and do not write like an advertisement. To avoid further deletion, be sure to use reliable sources to reference everything. Don't just link to the corporate website.

If it would help, I can provide a copy of the deleted article to your userspace to help with drafting. Jehochman ^Talk 11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PowerDVD

Hello, I saw the talk page of PowerDVD tagged as CSD G8 as you deleted the article per G11. The article has been around since 2003 and if you review it you shoudl find versions that aren't pure spam. So you may want to reconsider this and rather bring it to AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. It seems that all of the prior versions are the same, a product sell sheet. None of them contain any independently verified information or references. It seems that you might like this sent to AfD, so I will do that. Jehochman ^Arrr! 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it started as a one line stub. I now see above thread. Sometimes regular editors with a penchant for detailed facts and completeness produce something similar to what a COI editor would do. And the latter mimic our existing poor artciles with the usual "But my listing is modeled on the similar..." argument. Actually I had this player installed on my previous PC, which prompted me to look into this in the first place and it is rather well known. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could be true. However, at least one corporate employee worked on the articles [3], and I suspect that other accounts may be linked. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nick Saunders. We'll get to the bottom of this. Feel free to fix the article. If there are three solid references available, and the product feature list is removed, this might become a reasonable start class article. Jehochman ^Arrr! 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 20th 2008

Please follow your own guidelines and leave responses on this page instead of spamming up mine. My policy is to always respond on your user page. I have no interest in debating this with you further, although feel free to add fact tags to anything you disagree with and I'll provide references, even though they are not normally needed on talk pages. Please also don't cite WP guidelines, I already read them and citing them is a grave personal insult to my photographic memory. Oh the irony. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Your last post was removed. This one is much more useful, so I am happy to respond here. I don't have any editorial disagreement with you about the article PowerDVD. If you can add details, references and generally make improvements, I will stand aside and clap. My concerns for that article, and a bunch of others about CyberLink products, was that an official of the company had apparently been spamming Wikipedia to promote their products. It is not acceptable for companies to dump commercial content into Wikipedia and then expect volunteers to clean up their messes. When they do that, the correct response is speedy deletion under criteria G11 "blatant advertising". Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber

Thanks for the note, seems like it's a done deal anyway. And I'm not going to get in front of the bus for an editor I'm not 100% behind anyway. I'm more disgusted with the way it was done than the actual result if that makes any sense. The ugly side of Wikipedia popped out of a few peoples foreheads last night and I'm hoping that a few reasonable editors take note going forward. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, I'm just very discouraged...oh well. RxS (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban discussion locations

See here (October 2007). I've been updating a few things based on that. See the discussion here. Would you be able to remember where that October 2007 consensus was formed, and say what you think current practice is now? Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSN was Mfd'ed. Your edits have been accurate. I can comment at greater length later. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but...

I don't think our paths have crossed before. You went way off base on this one, and I'm really sorry that I'm going to recommend he take it to an admin complaint, and unfortunately I will have to support him if required. The diff's you posted really showed YOUR actions, and the ones you failed to post were even more telling. BMW(drive) 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I welcome any sort of review of my conduct. You might tell the other editor to stop posting curses and personal attacks. That might go a long way to calming this disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping cool about it. (PS: of course my umbridge question was rhetorical/attempted comical :) ) BMW(drive) 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a good faith contributor. You could help me a lot here. I would like to back away from the situation. Could you ask the other editor to remove their incivil remarks, and I will remove my responses? This will help reduce the conflict and be good for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about my warning to Lakinekaki

I think there have been misunderstandings about this situation, and I will be glad to answer any questions that anyone may wish to ask. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you give a short summary with some diffs? That would be helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will, but it is late here, and this should be done when I am wide awake and well fed. Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, maybe the thing to do is to read through the Wikiquette alert and see if anything remains unclear or unsettled. Are we still trying to decide if sanctions are needed, now that everything seems to have calmed down, or is there another reason to continue the discussion? NJGW (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping that Lakinekaki will understand that they should stick with a single account (either that one, another named one, or an IP) when editing in a particular area of Wikipedia, such as science and pseudoscience. They should not intentionally hop to different IPs to avoid scrutiny and divide their contribution history, warning history, and block history. If they would agree to that, I think problems would be greatly reduced. In addition, it would be helpful if they refrained from excessively strident rhetoric when interacting with other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of Lakinekaki's rhetoric is the most important to me because that's what started all this (both in terms of my involvement and the foul-up of the wikiquette page). Their last edit is more of the same, in that it is one sided and mischaracterizes the actions of others (for instance I am faulted for insisting that they use quotation marks around direct quotes). I agree fully with the statement above by Jehochman about Lakinekaki picking an ID/IP and sticking to it (which was what Jehochman's post which initiated all this actually said). NJGW (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Where can I file official complaint against Jehochman for threatening me with blocks for editing anonymously. I think that his persistence in insisting that I am a sock puppet doesn't leave me other choice, but to take this further. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what I said. You are free to edit via IPs. As I have stated many times, I am requesting that you not intentionally hop from account to account (named or IP accounts) in order to avoid scrutiny, as you suggested you might do here. I further stated that if you engaged in such behavior, your accounts could be blocked. A warning is meant to discourage the disruption of Wikipedia, and hopefully will help you avoid being blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I (or along with jossi) will be happy to review this case though nothing is clear yet. Could someone please make a brief summary of events (a chronology would be better) at my talk page? Jehochman and 216.80.119.92, could you please help with that and stop focusing on mutual accusations? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well past bedtime here. Please read User talk:216.80.119.92. The conversation that occurred is still visible there. It is not long. Additionally, look at this prior warning I issued. That was the reason why the user's talk page was on my watchlist. I noticed that problems had continued after my prior warning. Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks. I think it may take some time to do it, because I'm very tired of dealing with them and filing such things... I appreciate your caring. You might find obvious socks from South Korean cultural claims and its first/ second AFD‎.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of admin trainees. Would you mind helping them learn how to investigate sock puppetry? I'd like to use this situation as an exercise. They would do the initial gathering of evidence, and I would help. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it at all. I just thank you for the interest. If they look into newbies, it would be better to look their contributions altogether.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A note

Hi Jehochman,

Please have a look at my opinion here. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again. Thanks. fayssal - Wiki me up^® 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have taken the necessary actions to clean up my involvement in this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

you forgot one. some other editor who sees that may re-start everything again if he doesn't read relevant pages... 216.80.119.92 (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re

Let's take our hands off the block button for a moment. There was an accusation that the user violatedconflict of interest for the purpose of self-promotion to write about themselves or link to their own stuff for the purpose of promotion. This underlying matter has yet to be investigated. An area of policy that needs attention is the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI. They are presently in conflict with each other. Editors should not be punished for following written policies that are confusing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just answered the second part at the thread below. As for the rest, please verify if NPOV is respected. That would be the real 'investigation'. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I will recuse myself from further involvement with this editor, unless invited by them. I am confident that others can check NPOV. Jehochman ^Talk 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI vs. WP:OUTING

...An area of policy that needs attention is the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI. They are presently in conflict with each other. Editors should not be punished for following written policies that are confusing.Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They are clearly in conflict with each other unless we see it from a different angle:

• WP:OUTING is part of WP:HARASS which is a policy. It is also very tied to the Wikimedia Privacy policy. This is something much more serious than a conflict of interest because one may be exposing someone else to a risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.
• WP:COI is just a guideline and we can still defer to the NPOV policy instead (like a notable person can still create or edit their own bio as long as they abide by the neutral point of view policy). And, the main point behind the creation of the COI guideline is to maintain a high standard of NPOV after all.

What do you think? -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 16:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to explain in both places how the two policies interact. Make this crystal clear rather than relying on people to figure out which takes precidence and how to reconcile the differences. Remember, policy reflects actual practice, and I have seen very many cases of people discussing user identity at WP:COIN. Generally, if a user leaves clues about who they are, their identity is considreed fair game. I am not saying that is correct, but that is the practice as it stands now. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a note to WP:COI.[4] This may help prevent future problems. Keep in mind that a new editor may read WP:COI before they find WP:HARASS. Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I could not have expressed better than that. Thanks for being bold. A notice at both the village pump and the COI noticeboard would be great. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)