User talk:Jehochman

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

Standshown (talk · contribs)

Per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Standshown you asked to be notified if edit warring resumed. It seems to be all this user does. While Stagalj has been blocked as a sock, this editor shows no willingness to accept the agreements of other editors and will edit war over long periods of time even by removing cited information until he gets his way. See the edit histories here [1] and here [2] and here [3].--Veritas (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on Puppet state and placed on editing restriction per Digwuren. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is confirmed by checkuser Standshown=Smerdyakoff and Stagalj has not been declared innocent[4] . They have supported one another in RFC about Puppet state [5] and in article Serbia (1941-44) [6] --Rjecina (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Homeopathy/Warning

Hi Jehochman. Sorry I am posting here with a few concerns, but there is a warren of discussion pages regarding the issue. It is also quite a novel approach to reducing disruption, so the channels and forums for this 'probation' on articles are not evident.

• The template has been included at Thuja occidentalis, where the talk page became a forum for this issue, but to include it here greatly increases the scope of the 'sanction'.
• I also note that someone included the Category:Articles on probation in the template. The category page states, These articles have been placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee., which is not accurate AFAIK.
• The solution to this issue would seem to have consensus, but I believe the community may have acted rashly in doing this. Some points relating to the implications, management, and establishment of precedence were not adequately discussed - IMO. I hope the discussion is reinvigorated.

Thanks for putting your efforts into finding solutions to disruption, I hope my comments are useful. cygnis insignis 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC) and added links 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:CompScientist

I have proposed a community ban of CompScientist, based upon a new sock puppet that cropped up today at Vietnam War. While blocking the user may work in the short term, a community ban may be more preferred and was actually suggested at a prior CU. My account is listed at WP:ANI#Community ban of user:CompScientist. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

user:UkraineToday sockpuppets

Jehochman,

is there a faster way to block new socks? As soon as one is blocked, new ones sprout up, restoring the same edits. I see a new IP, 68.38.31.220, just a few minutes really after you blocked based on the 5th report.

Ironically, I was thinking about asking if there was any way to revisit the initial ban (Ukraine is politically divided down the middle. On the issues he tries to contribute on, here on WP, he is more or less alone, and clearly feels that one POV is getting pushed.) He might have helped balance articles - but his naming of RL ids and his ban-evading sock-use are too much. Jd2718 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just block them.  ;-) You can leave notes for me or any other administrator who is familiar if there are very obvious socks. Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Were it so easy.  :) I am not an admin (nor should I become one). But in this case these are dirt obvious, and he creates them in flurries. I assume there will be 2, 3, 4 more, and then nothing until next weekend, or the weekend after. Here's another, newer: 80.97.94.178 . (didn't you range block in the 80.97s? ) Jd2718 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. I am stepping out. Please take this to ANI for follow up. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll file at AN/I with the arrival of the next sock. Jd2718 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets

I have blocked both confirmed accounts from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff. I have raised the situation for further review at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sockpuppet situation needing more research. If you have further insight and/or evidence into the situation, it would be sincerely appreciated. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Given that you have been instrumental in setting probation for several articles, could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Article_probation_-_proposal? Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of CeraSport and CeraLyte

Hello Jehochman

I have been out of the loop for a while. I would like to get clarity on this topic if possible. I left this message on the talk page of the person who did delete the said pages.

"I am not an employee of this company. I have been away since I added these articles. My first article about this company was approved as should its other aspects. See Talk:Cera_Products.Coke, Pepsi, Gatorade Powerade all have a presence. All their research is in-house reseach. What Cera Products offers has been academically proven in peer review journals and is used in the medical field. Gatorade and powerade have not and are not recomended by physicians. These articles are worthy of being published in Wikipedia because, the product has been scientifically proven and it is an evolution of high quality natural health products for rehydration."

Is there anything else I can do?

User_talk:jabaker75

Yes. Level with me. Your goal is to promote these products, isn't that right? This is apparent from the tone of your post. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with the understanding that every thing on wiki is a promotion of information. Please see Risperidone. As such, cera products has been verified by FDA, and numerous academic, peer reviewed journals. Again please see Talk:Cera_Products. My current understanding is that as long as there is enough WP:RS then the material is substanciated. True?

With apprieciation for your work.

Jabaker75 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. These products should not have their own pages. They have not received sufficient independent coverage to warrant separate articles from the company. Debating this with me is not productive. I recommend you discuss this at Talk:Cera Products. I strongly urge you to disclose the apparent connection between yourself and the company. Perhaps you are a dealer, affiliate, PR agency employee, or other connected party. Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Talk:Homeopathy

Would you take a look at [7][8] please? —Whig (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Josepha Marschke

Hi, did you actually place this request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser? It doesn't look as if you did, and I was wondering if that was required? -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A clerk will list it eventually. Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK :-) -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade

More of the endless homeopathy stuff. Perhaps you could suggest to some of the editors that undiscussed reverts are a bad thing? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Come to my page. . . I have a response. Thank you.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note my comments on my talk page that I believed that I was following the guidelines of the conditions stated at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am respectfully requesting that you lift my 7 day ban on homeopathy related articles. I sincerely believed that I was following the letter and the spirit of the guideline at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation: "Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article" [[9]]. There did not appear to be any reasonable reason for me to repeat what had been discussed so extensively and repeatedly. [[10]] I also did not revert, but made changes in accord with what appeared to be the consensus (after very long and extensive discusssion) at the article discussion page: I removed the inappropriate therapeutic claims for homeopathy, and simply returned 1 sentence (with reference) stating that the plant was used in the manufacture of homeopathic products. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic amended

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Frustration on Talk:Quackwatch

I was wondering if you could help mediate a dispute at Talk:Quackwatch#consensus or no consensus (also see related discussion at Talk:Quackwatch#These conclusions could apply to the pseudotemplate itself). Ronz appears to be deliberately stonewalling when I ask him to present his arguments for inclusion of the pseudotemplate. It's impossible to carry on an actual discussion about the content this way. I'm hoping that an outside, authoritative voice might help to break us out of this cycle. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Update) Well, things have gotten a bit better with some effort, so mediation might not be necessary at this point. Ronz's behavior still does leave a bit to desire here (almost as if he was trying to make us waste time), but hopefully we're at least past that. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

re User:Arion 3x3

Just a heads up, following the discussion at their talkpage the editor has posted a request to lift the article block at WP:AN. You may wish to put your side. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving. . .

Hi Jehochman, thanks for closing this SSP case diff. I see that C1 looks to be on a wikibreak, hopefully s/he can recharge, I fear that WQA may have caused him/her too much stress over the long term. Anyways, thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The results of the third sockpuppet investigation in the history of this content dispute may be found here. Some editors, and even an administrator, are using the unresolved sockpuppet accusation as an excuse to dodge mediation. So that excuse no longer exists. Neutral Good (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)