User talk:Jehochman

User talk:Jehochman/Archive index

Talk:Keith Henson protection

Both the article and it's talk page have been protected for nearly two years now, an ip is asking that the protection be lifted at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. I haven't gone through the 300+ deleted edits, but I'm guessing the content they wish to add probably relates to the issues that caused the protection to be added in the first place. The other admin involved in protecting this has "vanished" and there is a note in the protection log to contact you before unprotecting, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk)

In short, no way. There is no possible benefit of IP editing worth the risk of letting banned Scientology editors diddle this WP:BLP. He's their number one enemy. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. There is no requirement for users to register an account. I can understand keeping the article locked, but how can we propose improvements on the talk page if we can't edit the talk page? 72.38.44.68 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors

good call.--Scott Mac 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad call, the article will be recreated. Count Iblis (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons based on policy? You comment is unimpressive. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors, excepting the comments by the canvassed single purpose accounts, which were properly disregarded, 95%+ of the comments favored deletion (or virtually 100% if you exclude soapboxing-type comments). I recommend not wasting your time, and more importantly the time of other editors. It is uncivil and improper to conduct needless disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The article had changed a lot during the AFD discussions; it was no longer a list of mirrors when it was deleted. Count Iblis (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If there was valid content that could be merged or moved elsewhere, please explain and I will help you get you a copy. Let's fix it directly instead of going through bureaucracy. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can access the deleted article, you'll see that User:emijrp (if I remember correctly) completely re-wrote it. The general text about the creation of the mirrors with some explanation without the long list (which was collapsed in the last version of the articles), should be ok. I guess this is something User:emijrp would be interested in working on... Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

How about I grab that content, and place it on Talk:Wikileaks here. From there it can be added to that or any appropriate sub article. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Content

This is the content that appears to be properly referenced and potentially salvageable. I have left out the links to mirrors, excessive quotation of primary sources, and unencyclopedic content.

On 2 December 2010, EveryDNS, a domain name registrar, dropped WikiLeaks from its entries, citing distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS) that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure".

After the site became the target of a denial-of-service attack from a hacker on its old servers, WikiLeaks moved its site to Amazon's servers. Later, however, the website was "ousted" from the Amazon servers.

After WikiLeaks was ousted from Amazon servers it installed itself on the servers of OVH in France. Following criticism from the French government, OVH sought two court rulings about the legality of its action. The court in Lille immediately allowed to keep hosting WikiLeaks, while the court in Paris stated it would need more time to examine the highly technical issue.

I hope this helps improve some article. If you feel there is other lost content of value, let me know. Somebody who knows more about Copyright should tell me if something else needs to be done to ensure proper attribution. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just notified User:emijrp about this. Count Iblis (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In the news

FYI: readwriteweb story tedder (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

...also reddit [1] and Digg [2]

You know we could IAR and create a protected soft redirect at List of WikiLeaks mirrors to http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html --Tothwolf (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not a fan of that. May as well have the article, it's an endorsement of the URL. tedder (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a huge list of links, at least. Alternatively, we could redirect to whatever subsection of the WikiLeaks article ends up covering this. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No opinion. Wikipedia is not a web directory. We do not host collections of links. Anybody wanting to find mirrors can search Google. Jehochman ^Talk 11:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

popcorn template

Would you please remove your template, it does nothing to aid discussion but more stifles discussion and belittles it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I rather suspect it is an inane attempt at defusing, but it takes a little more than that to defuse me - in fact, my fuse is still smouldering onwards.  Giacomo  18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's satire, primarily directed at the ArbCom, for fommenting drama with their inane statement. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, most satire goes over my head at this place, thanks for explaining. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted a remark explaining my position. You know, I tested the login also, as I believe others did. Why have ArbCom singled out Giano and equated his activities to hacking in tandem with a banned user? If they have a case, make it. Otherwise STFU and don't make innuendos about an editor. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying it, I went there immediately and tested it also. I expect we should have our names added to the line about unsuccessfully attempting to retrieve data from the wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd.

"I also knocked on the door." That's odd, because the logs most certainly do not show that you have done so during that period of time. — Coren ^(talk) 21:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sneakier than the average hacker. (!) Or maybe I chickened out at the last minute. I thought I had tested it and was worried I'd be banned. Maybe you're looking at the wrong timeframe. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, once we figured out what happened, there is little point requesting that a sysadmin again inspects logs just to make an enumeration of who got their curiosity in overdrive at random times later and confirm they did. The point is, the only one who had made a public claim of having tried to log in was Giano; hence the statement.

But you really shouldn't be "knocking on doors" like that ever; in all jurisdictions where I have done forensic investigations, just trying a username/password to a system you know you do not have legitimate access or a warrant is a crime (albeit one that's basically never prosecuted on its own — it's just not worth it). It's still the kind of thing that can land you in a pile of smelly stuff. (And no, just to make things five hundred percent clear, this isn't even vaguely a legal threat). — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I entered my own userid and password to see if I was allowed in. Maybe the logging is broken... Jehochman ^Talk 01:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possible that only failed attempts to existing usernames are logged; or that this is the only thing the dev extracted from the logs. — Coren ^(talk) 01:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my interruption, and possibly my misunderstanding...but how do you know this Coren? Did you really do a CU on Jehochman to determine his IP and compare it with the server logs? Or did someone else? Is that kosher with the CU policy? Arkon (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. I know this by default: there were two persons who tried, and we know who both are. Since J isn't either, then the inference is simple.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thanks! Arkon (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The RfC

Since you suggest we close the RfC as redundant, I think you may not understand its purpose. The RfC is the best way of formulating a community consensus that the lead is fine. If we have a solid, recent consensus on the issue, than we can dismiss further arguments, without even having to humor them. You've been claiming that reliable sources back up the statement in question - they do, but that isn't preventing discussion. POV pushers and socks can still claim that there's no consensus for that particular wording (and there really isn't). If we can get a consensus on the current wording, then over-discussion of the issue will be against consensus. You may view the RfC as 'just anther discussion', but I believe it can be the last discussion. If you still disagree, I understand. I just thought it would be helpful to have a single, conclusive discussion rather than the vagueness of "several discussions". Swarm ^X 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you dig through the archives and find all the past discussions? It would be a great help if you created some sort of table or history to put this in context. You'll notice that in the past I argued against using the word "torture", preferring instead to describe the act rather than labeling it. Alas, my view was not the consensus. Since then I have respected the consensus view. Jehochman ^Talk 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be useful... I'll see what I can do. Swarm ^X 12:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is the act of restaining a prisoner and pouring water over his face, mouth and nose to simulate drowning." This is very neutral and accurate. Later we can say who thinks this is torture and who thinks it isn't. The reader can then decide for themselves. I am very opposed to describing waterboarding as non-torture. That would be even further from neutral. A statement such as "Waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique" would be very bad. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Simply describing something is obviously the most neutral and accurate way a phrase can be put. However, replacing "torture" with another selective term like "enhanced interrogation technique" would indeed be either further from neutral. Swarm ^X 02:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mystery meat

• Elliot McGucken (AfD discussion)
• elliot mcgucken

Only you know why you might want to keep an eye out here. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle, those pages are redlinks. Jehochman ^Talk 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Psst! The second is where the article was actually created, both times. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call. On the list of Wikileaks links, too. Ray^Talk 04:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Highly involved?

Could you provide a diff which defines me as WP:INVOLVED in the DC/Cirt affair? WP:INVOLVED states "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role." Before declaring me "highly involved" could you at least point to ANY situation which makes me somehow "involved"? --Jayron32 23:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• You have had a long term set of editorial conflicts with Cirt. Saying you are uninvolved/objective with respect to Cirt is not credible. Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I had a what with whom? Seriously? Diffs please would be nice. I am not aware of ever having a conflict with Cirt at any point. I believe you have mistaken me with someone else. I think if you are going to indicate that I have perpetrated a wrongdoing you should, you know, have to show it? I seriously have never had a conflict with Cirt over anything ever. --Jayron32 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you're not mis-spelling Jayen466? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what happened. I confused the two. Jayron32, you have my apologies, and I've struck my remarks here and there. Your username is very similar, Jay-something-n and an even number. Jehochman ^Talk 01:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's all good. No harm, no foul. --Jayron32 03:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You can both make good by helping to decide what to do about Mount Cooper (AfD discussion). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request concerning Cirt's editing

I have already offered to file an arbitration enforcement request concerning Cirt's editing, in the AE where I also posed some questions about the sanctions (it would be great if you could answer those, by the way).

While I believe I have laid out enough evidence in the original ANI thread for this to be completely unnecessary, I am willing to put in the time required to meet whatever bureaucratic hurdles are deemed necessary in this case. Although I may be under an interaction ban -- or not, it isn't clear to me since the admin who imposed the sanctions was clearly confused about a number of the basic facts of the case and Cirt has agreed that they shopped around for someone to impose sanctions -- I have already done as much research as is necessary and would be posing more evidence in the ANI thread had these sanctions not been imposed.

The circumstances may be unusual, but I think we are both concerned about doing what is best for the project rather than mindlessly following process for the sake of process, aren't we? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have every right to file an AE request as a matter of reformatting evidence already presented so that the controversy can be ended. Given what I have seen, the likely endpoint is for both you and Cirt to receive warnings. The sanction you received is void as far as I am concerned because it did not comply with the arbitration remedy's specific requirements. You can copy and paste evidence regarding Cirt that was already presented. There is a value in you gathering, organizing and summarizing the evidence. We need to keep these threads concise and filter out as much of the bickering as we can. A fresh start of the discussion would probably do that. Feel free to link to this comment if anybody suggests you are doing something wrong. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you and Cirt can find a way to get along, as I am wikifriends with both of you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I will file the request when I get the time, most likely later today. I think Cirt does a lot of good work as an admin and an editor, but they have a blind spot when it comes to this particular topic area. Whatever the resolution of this situation, I am sure Cirt and I will be able to put it behind us. Even friends disagree sometimes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest, before you file the request, that you go have a chat with Cirt and link to this conversation. Perhaps you two could agree to work on some articles together. If you can politely discuss differences of opinion and come to an agreement on how the text should read, I think you are both going to be much better off. You'll face much less criticism and stress. Perhaps Jayen466 could also be encouraged to join the effort. All of you are capable of good editing. If you focus on objective standards of article quality, such as passing WP:GAC or WP:FAC, instead of POV, I think that would be a great benefit for all concerned and for Wikipedia. If you have disagreements, leave them open and get an uninvolved reviewer to help you sort them out. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Jehochman, I would like that. I would very much like, at my user talk page, to first try to make a good faith effort to address concerns raised by Delicious carbunce, just as I have already done at ANI and at BLPN. As one case study example: Delicious carbuncle raised concerns both at ANI and at BLPN about the page Michael Doven. I worked to improve the page collaboratively, and my efforts resulted in successfully addressing the concerns raised to the satisfaction of Maunus (talk · contribs), who commented, in edit to article, see edit summary: "remove neutrality tag - Cirt has argued well for the merit of included material". That commented was most appreciated, as was the positive, polite, and collaborative nature of the behavior of Maunus at that article's talk page. Further, Jehochman, I would love to work together with Delicious carbuncle as you have proposed, in order to get an article within the topic ready for WP:GAC or even WP:FAC. I have proposed a quality improvement project of the book Slaves of Sleep, a well-regarded work written by L. Ron Hubbard that is considered a "classic" of science fiction. I posted to talkpages of relevant WikiProjects to help garner additional collaborative contributors to help with this quality improvement project - all are welcome to assist in research and writing, and we could coordinate that at Talk:Slaves of Sleep. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, I have posted to User talk:Delicious carbuncle, presenting these two ideas you have suggested to us. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Per your above comment, also posted similar outreach, to User talk:Jayen466. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, while I can appreciate Jehochman's suggestions and your show of goodwill in extending this offer, I must decline it for the following reasons:

• My concerns are related to BLP and POV issues, not Scientology. While working on an article about a book by CoS founder L Ron Hubbard may improve our working relationship, I do not think it is relevant to the issues I have raised. Perhaps we could work together on something completely unrelated to Scientology when this is resolved.
• I have presented evidence at ANI of a long-term pattern of POV-pushing and anti-Scientology activities because it is my sincere belief that you hold a bias that prevents you from fairly applying our policies and guidelines. I do no think it is appropriate or helpful to reframe this as a personal dispute between two editors which can be solved through discussion on your talk page.
• Having publicly raised my concerns, I believe it would be unfair to you if you did not have an opportunity to publicly rebut them. Your comments thus far at WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, and WP:AE appear to be attempts to limit discussion of the underlying issues rather than addressing them.
• You have stated that your reason for canvassing admins to impose sanctions on me at the arbitration request you started was due to your frustration over critical statements made by another editor. I cannot understand this statement to mean anything other than that you were deliberately attempting to limit discussion which was critical of your actions. I think this is both grossly inappropriate for an admin and indicative of your unwillingness to directly address valid concerns.
• Even in the article you use as an example of your successful collaboration with other editors on CoS-related articles, you are merely demonstrating your lack of perspective. On Michael Doven, a good-faith edit attempt to separate the subject's professional career from their involvement with the CoS was made by another editor after I raised it at BLPN. You reverted it. Although some of the fluff has been removed, the article is still larded with a truly ridiculous number of gratuitous references to Scientology and Scientologists (including a reference in the lede to "the younger sister of musician Beck"). The reader is given the impression that Doven's success is inextricably linked to Scientology. This BLP should serve as an example of why I feel that I must file a request for arbitration enforcement.

I regret having to rebuff your outreach and I hope you understand this is not personally motivated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I would like to try to address these issues with you here. I have already tried to clean up the article pages you had previously cited at BLPN and at ANI. I removed lots of chunks of unsourced and poorly sourced info. I asked you to post more specifically to the article talk pages about further concerns. You did not participate in the cleanup efforts at Talk:Michael Doven. Maunus did. Maunus said my efforts helped to improve the page. What else can I do to help address your concerns? -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, let me answer your question with a question - what was my reply when you suggested posting on the article's talk pages? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, when you brought these issues simultaneously to both ANI and to BLPN, multiple editors were confused as to why you had not previously tried to resolve them at their respective article talk pages. Nevertheless, I responded rapidly by removing unsourced info. You and I had an exchange at BLPN where you thanked me for removing info you had complained about ([3] [4] [5]). What more can I do to adequately respond to your concerns? -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And what was my reply when you suggested posting on the article's talk pages? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, explain it to me, I would like to hear it from you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I said in the Michael Doven discussion at BLPN: "As I have said in the ANI thread, I am not editing any articles related to Scientology lest people misunderstand my intentions in that thread". When questioned about this I replied "Any edits I might make to Scientology-related articles at this point will be used to distract from the larger and far more important issue being raised at ANI". It is unfortunate these types of measures should be necessary, but considering that my edits to a single article which is arguably related to Scientology have ended up being seriously considered as sanctionable under ARBSCI, I have no intention of providing anyone with more ammunition. I am sure you are aware of my position, so I find both puzzling and impolite that you continue to ask me to post on the talk pages of CoS-related articles. I am prepared to drop the sanction request if you agree to stop editing CoS-related BLPs and agree to a probation regarding your edits in relation to all CoS-related articles. Otherwise, you can respond to my concerns in a literal sense at AE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DC, if Cirt's behavior is problematic, surely others have noticed by now are all the posts you've done. In the interest of minimizing conflict, I request you either (1) file an AE request, and then walk away, letting others evaluation the evidence and decide what to do, or (2) just walk away now and let somebody else decide whether further steps are needed. No editor is indispensable, though all good faith, competent editors are valued. If you recuse yourself from this matter, you should have faith that any necessary follow up will be done by others. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I will file a request as soon as I find the time. Thanks for the use of your talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that there's no deadline, could you wait until after the holidays? A lot of people are busy or under stress this time of year. Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns are serious matters and I'm not sure there should be any delay in tackling them. I think there are probably enough interested admins around willing and able to jump in and ensure that any issues involving editing of BLP articles is dealt with sooner rather than later. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If Cirt violates WP:BLP the matter can be dealt with directly. What's happening here is that several editors are challenging past actions, requesting a broad and lengthy sanction without the formal warning required by ArbCom's ruling. By all means, fix the articles without delays, but the user conduct RFC or equivalent proceeding can wait. It is just plain nasty to stress somebody during Christmas. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Jehochman, but since the issue is being actively discussed in the appeal of my sanctions, I think it would be less disruptive if there was a venue in which people could discuss it directly. I stopped posting to ANI thread when Cirt made their request to snction me and I see that you have closed the discussion, so that is not an option. I know that this is a holiday period for some people, but I believe it is kinder to get this out of the way than leave it looming. The request for sanctions will be filed today. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I would very much like to address any remaining concerns you have currently with articles on Wikipedia. I would like to try to fix any lasting issues at present, can you please specify what current complaints you have with articles that I could help you to improve upon? -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances that isn't possible, but your offer is noted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Offsite communications between you and Cirt

Did you and Cirt discuss this arbitration request prior to your attempt to prematurely close it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)