User talk:Jehochman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hullaballo violating Wikipedia rules.

Excuse me. I would like to report an editor named "Hullaballoo" for intentionally damaging a page. I see you have had run ins with him before. Even though a page now contains Critical Commentary he has deleted all of the images on the page in clear violation of wikipedia rules. the page in question is:


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly, welcome to my talk page. This is the best place to address any concerns you have with my actions, not that cesspool page AN/I. I did leave one note there to set the record straight, but I don't think I shall participate further. If you want to chat here, let me know. Jehochman Talk 02:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jonathan - I think the discussion will stay centered there, cesspool that it may be, because it's a concern that's been raised about the actions of several people, not just you. There's a good possibility (nearing certainty) that this will end up in the Neelix arbitration case unless there's a good explanation. With respect - Kelly hi! 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, you were wrong to denounce me at AN/I without coming here to ask me first. If this is the way I get treated after trying to sort a mess I just won't bother in the future. You know I'm the one who unblocked Johnny? Jehochman Talk 04:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please allow me to apologize. I looked into it some more and, as I posted at ANI, I can hardly blame you given the way the situation was presented to you at the time. I can't believe I let myself get drawn into ANI drama; time to go do some work on scheduled monuments. All the best - Kelly hi! 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Please don't feel bad in any way. You are doing good work and as I look back on what I did it certainly looks like it needs explaining. I should have posted a better explanation at the time. Jehochman Talk 15:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for lines such as "Be a human instead of a pencil pusher." I tried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

IAR should be restated. The most important rule on Wikipedia is to be a decent human. If doing so requires making an exception from some other rule, you must. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Check my edit notice :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My Votes in the ArbCom Election 2015

This is a secret vote by default. My votes are not secret. I have voted for the following editors. I doubt that any of them are perfect, but on balance I think they all have something to offer through their possible service on the Committee. If you think I've made any mistakes, please explain why.

  • Timtrent
  • Casliber
  • NE Ent
  • Opabinia regalis
  • Rich Farmbrough
  • Drmies
  • Keilana
  • Kelapstick

Thank you for any thoughtful comments. Jehochman Talk 03:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Could you please re-read the thread, after the bit that SV closed? It was on a completely different topic and we were making decent progress at actually sorting out what could end up as bad blood. I'd appreciate it if you could restore that part of the conversation. WormTT(talk) 14:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to restore any parts of that content that don't talk about the banned user by name. I trust you. Jehochman Talk 15:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
[We know who] contacts me seven or eight times a year even when I don't respond through off-wiki messages - especially since we apparently have former arbs who didn't realize he was in fact sitebanned, I'm not sure what was too wrong with the discussion, since he is a banned user, and we can't really enforce bans if people don't know who they are. I'd honestly rather just keep the whole conversation off my talk page for now, since I think the issues brought up towards the end of this section probably pose a bigger problem for the current arbcom elections. I'm not too enthusiastic about the idea of an arbcom consisting of a total of six people, which I have the feeling this might end up as.... Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I've read recently that he was actually not sitebanned, but only blocked, due to the removal of a ban but no reinstatement. I haven't looked into that claim, and that's why I suggested I hadn't looked into the ban situation. I looked into the history of the case when I first started on the committee, and from my perspective it was mostly overblown - but these things often look overblown from the outside, I haven't seen the volume or the content of the off-wiki messages, so I can't know how bad it is. WormTT(talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)