User talk:Jehochman/Archive 20

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



Hi. Look, I'm sorry that I came off overly agressive but I get a bit iritated by editors who 1) seem to think that "oh but look at my tenure/edit count" means something and 2) admins who take unilateral action. Now we all know AGF, and we all know admins have to do some crap stuff that gets grief at some point or from somewhere. I'm actually with you on a lot of your thinking and no doubt if we'd been discussing this over a decent glass of red wine all would have been happy. But I really don't like stuff that appears as a "I know better than you" comment and I'm afraid I will challenge that mind set if I see it. No hard feelings I hope. Pedro :  Chat 

Fair enough. Jehochman Talk 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wasn't Jehochman correcting another editor there who called him "an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia?"[1] Perhaps an ironic response, in that the lesson of the day may be to avoid saying rash things out of pique. Anyway, sorry to come here uninvited. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Editors with evil sounding usernames are especially welcome at this page. See header. Jehochman Talk 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
And it's always Fairy Nuff, at least in my book :) Pedro :  Chat  23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


Do you believe WMC is interested in fair justice here [2] in Wikipedia. He seems to have denied my appeal on his editing restriction, without even a hearing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

People can remove comments from their own talk page for a variety of reasons, or for no reason at all. You can assume he's read your comment but doesn't wish to respond to it. That being the case, it's generally considered rude to keep badgering someone on their own talk page when they've made it clear they don't want to talk to you. Does your conception of "fair justice" include the right to keep posting on someone's talk page after they've made clear that they wish you to stop? MastCell Talk 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
For the most part, I've been respecting WMC's request to stay off his page; however, does he respect mine and others to improve his behavior? I apprecate he and others can appeal restrictions aimed at helping him. Is he interest in my appeal to talk to him directly? The concept of clean hands is what comes to my mind about justice. WMC seeking equitable appeal while granting none, is largely unjustly. Seems like Jehochman is interested in justice, maybe he will hear my appeal, will you Jehochman? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Do not post to WMC's talk page unless he invites you to do so. Failure to comply may result in your account being blocked. It is not acceptable to badger a user on their talk page where they cannot get away from unwanted conversations. Jehochman Talk 00:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Input please

I'd appreciate your input and feedback regarding my proposed proposed remedy/enforcement found here. Thanks. Minor4th 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Time is now 2 days past the period where we voluntarily topic-banned ourselves. I'm going to continue, for at least one more week, even if i've been tempted several times, especially considering that others seem to have dropped any pretence of following this. Perhaps there should be a call to extend? Or a general acknowledgement that the heat-death of the universe has a slim but apparently real possibility of occuring before ArbCom ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I did what I could to calm matters. It's up to ArbCom to issue a ruling. They should do so soon. Jehochman Talk 00:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I found (and find) it a good initiative - which is also why i think you should call for extension (voluntary as well), although whether it was effective is another thing :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume that the publication of the Proposed decision means that the voluntary topic-bans are over? I can't completely recollect the terms? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Others would seem to hold that view, and I've noted that at the voluntary agreement list as well as moving myself to the "withdrawn" list. As noted, I made minimal edits to at least register my concern about a BLP issue; I've explained these edits at the CC decision talk page. The initiative did indeed calm matters, at the expense of letting a few editors run wild. . . dave souza, talk 03:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I vaguely recall a post by Jehochman indicating that the voluntary ban extended to the final, not just the preliminary decision. However, I can't immediately find the discussion. My equally vague recollection is that there was also a time limit, something like two weeks, which has more than passed. I was planning to be safe and wait, but in light of Lomborg bombshell, I didn't want the edits at that page to suffer, so I'm stepping in. (Someone posted a link, with a poor edit, so Cluebot jumped in,. They reposted without the slur, and a human jumped in, but missed the link. So I've added a bandaid edit and a link. I'm actually unlikely to edit much until Friday, due to a conference starting tomorrow, so I won't have many edits. Some attention by those with a clue would be appreciated.
I don't think I've broken the spirit of the voluntary agreement, given the time elapsed, but if others are still abiding by it and Jehochman says it is still in force, I'll revert my edits.--SPhilbrickT 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please edit as you like, but I suggest you avoid making provocative changes. If any doubt, use the talk page first. Jehochman Talk 03:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

EE circus

Having this circus in town is not helping the situation. Unless someone is going to do some "enforcing", I think it is time for the caravan to move on. Beside the show is really lousy, same clowns doing the same stunts all over again. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see Biophys is unwilling to back down. Haven't checked whether Russavia has agreed with my proposal. I'm unable to focus on this for about 24 hours. If another admin could issue the blocks (if needed) and be available afterwards, they should feel free to proceed. See first thread on WP:AE, my talkpage admin lurkers. Jehochman Talk 01:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Now this is too much, someone voting against me on a move proposal on the disambiguation page State. I have never seen him show up on this part of Wikipedia before. I have a strong feeling that this was a punitive edit caused by something I said at AE. I am getting out of this mess, good bye and take care. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I have indeed commented on your proposal.[3]. I see the reasons for suggesting to withdraw from that; it would be great if disputes weren't manufactured like this in the future; it does nothing but create more headaches, battles and animosity. We can both agree, I am sure, that we don't need it. Anyway, thanks for posting what you did; it at least has been seen and commented on by myself. If anything else, my talk page is always available if needed. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea

I like your idea "The idea of rotating administrators out would be a good one. Perhaps we should set a voluntary target of 60 days maximum in the "hot zone". After that the administrators leave and do other things for at least 60 days."

I'd like to see this as part of a Wikipedia wide initative to cover all "dirty jobs". I'd outlined the bare bones of an idea at Tour of Duty, and hope to improve it and get more community input over time.--SPhilbrickT 12:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We could offer badges to editors who complete specific tours of duty. Like barnstars these can be displayed, and would be useful when people apply for higher ops, or get reviewed. Jehochman Talk 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I realize some editors downplay the significance of barnstars, and there's definitely some abuse, but if done right, it is an almost costless (there always some time and bureaucracy needed) way to reward those who take on challenging tasks. I don't want to imply that this doesn't happen now—it does in many ways, but this would be a relatively easy way to keep track of those who voluntarily do some of the dirty work. --SPhilbrickT 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Apologies for deleting the redlinked redirect earlier; I ought to have guessed that something was about to happen at the target... BencherliteTalk 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I completely understand. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


The way you have responded to me on the PD talkpage makes it look as though I called a user an asshole. Can you please correct this accusation. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will refactor it for clarity. I find the way you've presented this here very ironic, and plan to leave the heading just as it is. Jehochman Talk 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course this is all ridiculous. "Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit" is a figure of speech. I wasn't calling anyone an asshole specifically. Besides, if I was going to use that term I would've said arsehole. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If I were in your situation, I probably would have said something much worse.  :-) When you are dealing with a disruptive editor, they will look for any crack to exploit. Cover yourself by not using language that can be misconstrued. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course the great irony here is that it all came out of me trying to get Polargeo to moderate his remarks - User_talk:Polargeo#Barber. I might just go and open my veins now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you heard the expression No good deed goes unpunished? Jehochman Talk 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Oddly relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Rather than grappling with anybody, why don't you gather up some evidence and file a request for enforcement if the objectionable behaviors by other editors continues. I wanted to propose some additional sanctions, but could not, because the needed materials were not presented in evidence. Jehochman Talk 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not interested in getting people sanctioned. I edit Wikipedia because I think the project is awesome and fun to work on. Diff-diving is distasteful to me, and I usually restrict that sort of thing to identifying socking, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    Some folks involved in this conflict appear to do a lot of diff diving. At a formal process like arbitration, this gives them a tactical advantage. Much as you dislike collecting evidence, it is a necessary step if you find an editor who is damaging the encyclopedia and refuses to be swayed by informal discussion. Jehochman Talk 20:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    But is that not what Administrators are for? To go all Agent Smith ("Find them and destroy them!") on these troublesome users, leaving us grunts to keep making Wikipedia awesome? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case

Just a note to say I've collapsed the Scjessy discussion thread, please don't add anything more to it (although I don't mind if you strike anything). Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness! That was turning ugly. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Our recent conflict in perspective on EEML

I have made a concerted effort to put EEML in the past. Please do not paint yourself as a victim as that only re-litigates the case and forces me to respond in kind. Whenever two parties view themselves as the victim and the other as the aggressor, nothing good comes of that. We should consider a calming spot of tea together. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 19:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should let past controversies die, and instead focus on creating excellent quality content. Jehochman Talk 20:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

About your edit to WP:GIANTDICK

Go piss up a rope er just kidding. Your tweak better describes this annoying behavior then my initial wording. See this section in an essay I wrote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am so tempted to blank your post! Have you seen wp:delicious yet? Jehochman Talk 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I would have to agree with with the !voter in the second MFD who said it's not funny but an obvious attempt at humor. BTW, I think this image would be perfect for WP:GIANTDICK. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Do I have a "sister" called Sapho?

Very. Well. Played! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello. I am one of the individuals that was involved in a past discussion in which a dispute arose between Badagnani and another user. Though I have not been on the receiving end of Badagnani's allegedly continued belligerence, and though I am in no way affiliated with him, I have always thought that his presence in our project was an overall net positive. His some-odd 136,000 contributions and 1,300 new articles were often made within esoteric areas of interest (e.g., traditional Asian instruments and cuisine) that seldom see edits by anyone, let alone dedicated contributors.

Earlier today, I stumbled upon his userpage while reviewing my list of contributions and saw that he had been blocked indefinitely. Looking over the AN/I discussion, I realize that this was done as an act of mercy--so as to prevent a year long ArbCom block--but it has now been eight months and frankly it seems rather unlikely that he is going to appeal within a reasonable time frame. Considering the rationale behind his most recent block, the relative severity of offenses which preceded it, and his overall value to our project, would you perhaps be willing to consider lifting it at this point in time?   — C M B J   06:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They can request unblocking with a statement of what productive things they will do, and perhaps what un productive behavior they will avoid. Jehochman Talk 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I will forward this discussion to (what appears to be) the user's Flickr account.   — C M B J   09:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your wrong venue tag

Your wrong venue tag is out of line and unhelpful. We were asked to report edit warring on CC articles and this is being logged in the PD, particularly with regard to any articles that are protected as the result of the edit war such as this one. Please remove the tag and let arb clerks and arbs decide what is the wrong venue. Since you placed the tag FellGleaming has taken the opportunity you have provided to make a nasty comment about even admins not knowing where to post things. I would remove it myself but I don't wish to cause a commotion. Polargeo (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You have my consent to remove the tag. The thread looked like a lot of useless bickering. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed and disillusioned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Out of all the candidates at the most recent ArbCom election, you were the only one I voted for. Because of your work on the 9/11 conspiracy theories articles, you were one of the few admins whom I had gained to trust. I am very disappointed and disillusioned that I was wrong. Your comments and actions as an admin in the climate change namespace are extremely suspect and reveal a disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I am very sorry for having supported you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I appreciated your 9/11 help, and appreciate you speaking your mind now. Give me a few diffs and explain what you think is going on between Greg and WMC. Jehochman Talk 02:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman: I asked you politely that you respond to my post.[4] Instead of answering my good faith question, your response was to ignore my question and delete my post,[5] I am very sorry for having supported you. I will now log off before I say something that I might regret later. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a long thread with all the needed evidence. Why would you ask me to explain when everything is laid out already? Jehochman Talk 08:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. Aside from edit-warring, I don't see anything beyond an argument from authority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
See my latest comments on ANI the thread. Let's keep the discussion together there. I am sorry we disagreed over this matter, but one cannot expect to agree with another editor all the time. Jehochman Talk 12:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ANI Appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I will. Jehochman Talk 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I read your statement, and the thing that sticks out the most is your final statement, Of course, that won't matter, you are looking to lynch a skeptic. This is exactly the sort of WP:BATTLE violation that leads to editors being excluded from a topic area. Jehochman Talk 12:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It is what you are doing. I notice that you have no comment on the sources that support my cite of WMC's article. GregJackP Boomer! 13:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This conversation may be continued in the appropriate section of WP:ANI. Further posts here will be removed. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I blocked all three accounts on my talk page that you were conversing with. You might not want to encourage socking or give out advice how to do it better. [6] Jehochman Talk 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if he is totally compromised how am I to know. I did nothing to encourage him and looks if you are correct that he doesn't need anyone advice, which I wouldn't give him anyway, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Let me know if any more accounts like that turn up. The best strategy is to block them swiftly, remove their posts, and deny them the soapbox. Jehochman Talk 14:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you were too fast with the block button. There seems to be a consensus that Weaponbb7 is a compromised account. That does not imply that the user's legitimate second account is also compromised. Note:

  • Weaponbb7's user page said that he is a "Sophmore at UT Chattanooga", in anthropology, and said so before the account was compromised. [7]
  • The IP you blocked,, resolves to "University of Tennessee Space Institute" (Tullahoma, TN), which is 80 miles from Chattanooga. The slight discrepancy can easily have an innocent explanation.
  • One of the accounts you blocked, Weaponbb7-2, was Weaponbb7's legitimate second account and linked as such from his user page, again before his main account was compromised. (Same link as above shows it.)
  • The behaviour of ResidentAnthropologist was slightly odd but within reasonable bounds for a user whose account has been compromised and who for some reason decided to continue contributing under a new name. It seems very hard to explain under any other assumption.

If you haven't done this yet, you really need to contact a checkuser. If Weaponbb7's story is true, they are probably under great stress right now, and Wikipedia shouldn't contribute to this. Hans Adler 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this a bit closer, I take it back. There is a detail I missed. But I still think a checkuser should look at this. Hans Adler 15:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. I am not a checkuser, so I cannot figure out which accounts (if any) to unblock. Jehochman Talk 15:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I am a checkuser 8-) , and neither of those accounts were KatWoman et al. Furthermore, Wbb7 geolocates to wbb's IP as well. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I am writing an email with an overview over the situation and some additional off-wiki information. Are you dealing with the matter or should I send it elsewhere, e.g. functionaries-en? I think it's worth getting this one right, and due to the JIDF's apparent experience with taking over passwords and possibly impersonation this might not be so easy. Hans Adler 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
func-en is the best place. -- Avi (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I just finished my email. I guess you know almost all of it already (and I omitted many details that you can easily find on-wiki), but I think it's better to make absolutely sure you are not missing anything and to document this situation for the future. Hans Adler 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Barnstar-abc.png The Helping Hand Barnstar
This is technically for people helping "new editors" but thank you for your recent assistance. You made the right blocks. Worries :-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo ANI

I'm not sure archiving[8] was such a great action while the arbs are still figuring out what to do. I supported arbitration yesterday but am having mixed feelings about it right now. My main concern was that ANI was moving too fast. I didn't realize at the time that GWH ws making an independent investigation. I'm trustful that he will do a good job. An ANI sub-page might have been a better approach than arbitration for slower paced community discussion. I still feel karmic discomfort about the idea of ANI issuing a long-term site ban in a situation like this (even if completely supported by evidence and policy), but lesser outcomes from ANI would have been fine with me. (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There was some back and forth on the method of archiving- it ended up with it in the normal archives (archive 640) and easily available for reference in the apparently imminent Arbcom case. That's ok with me, personally.
I stepped back from pursuing the investigation as Arbcom signaled overnight that they intend to take the case. I expected them to hold back, and last night was still moving forwards, but if they're going to take it then they preempt.
The possibility that they might get it wasn't justification to stop investigating independently, but them signaling that they're about to accept the case is.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm to blame for this--my post may have influenced the arbs towards acceptance. I still have no idea whether that's good or bad. Oh well. (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

SV: Please don't post to this conversation again in the style of prior posts. I know your position. You've repeated yourself and you've annoyed me with your condescending tone, and smears without diffs. You can unarchive the thread, or start a new one, if you feel strongly that such actions are needed, though I think such actions might be viewed dimly by ArbCom when they review the matter. I stepped in to close the thread, as it appeared nobody else was willing to do so. I did not feel comfortable applying any sanction based on the long, convoluted discussion. ANI is poorly suited to lengthy threads with detailed evidence spanning many years. It's for incidents, not investigations. Rather than d quibbling with me, why don't you go address the substance of the matter to ArbCom. A case should be open shortly. Jehochman Talk 06:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
I just found this. I should block you for NPA, or something. :) NW (Talk) 23:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


In case you are interested, I've became involved in actual research, as well as in helping edit a paper that was just published under peer review, probably the most significant such publication in, oh, twenty years.... ... I'm credited just before the bibliography, which I think is totally cool. In any case, I'm COI now, and have been conducting myself according to COI guidelines. Rigorously. But that didn't stop JzG from getting a community ban for Pcarbonn, on almost exactly the same arguments, misrepresenting what Pcarbonn had done, not pointing out that all the edits had been suggestions in Talk (and probably proper ones!).... Anyway, if JzG pushes this, he could end up being troutslapped, it's blatantly obvious, and by pushing it, he is ignoring advice that arbitrators and others gave him. His POV is based on what a friend of his told him years ago. Science has moved on. Cold fusion hasn't yet been accepted by "mainstream scientists," just by panels of experts and peer reviewers, over the last six years.... I couldn't put POV nonsense in the article if I wanted to, which I don't. And because disruption was starting to appear over (yes, sometimes long) informational posts (about the article!) on Talk:Cold fusion, I stopped that. JzG responded today because I went to meta to undo the mess he made a year ago. We'll see how that goes, but I was always successful getting pages whitelisted on Wikipedia. It's just less work for others if I go to meta, so I did. They notified JzG, so he came unglued. --Abd (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion at AN, Jehochman, about abstaining from working on the topic of Cold fusion. I've been following WP:COI, I believe. The suggestion made by Smokey Joe that I have something to gain here is parochial, it's a common assumption made about editors who are thought to be "fringe." As you can see if you look at the link I provided above, I just got mentioned as an editor at a journal that Einstein used to publish in, in the deepest peer-reviewed secondary source review of the field in about twenty years. I'm respected by scientists in the field, I've met a number of them and have been invited to meet more. A kind Wikipedia editor, a scientist, provided me with substantial funding for my research, and has offered to fund my travel to conferences. I'm doing exciting, cutting-edge work, it turns out. I'm pretty sure that I'll end up being published under peer review myself, and there is more.
Compared to all this, Wikipedia means about nothing to me. I was just trying to be helpful. If the community, and this includes you, wants me to help, following COI guidelines, fine. If not, fine. It's only one more leak in what might be a sinking ship.
I wrote in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley that Wikipedia, if it wants quality science content in matters where some controversy has arisen, needs to protect experts. I advised that anyone declaring expertise be considered COI! And then protected, guided to follow civility guidelines, refactored when needed, if they write too much, etc. Think about it. Experts famously get in trouble by revert warring with Randy from Boise, or arguing with him. The job of the expert should be to explain the subject, provide sources for verification, and review the existing article, well enough so that Randy, if he's sincere, will actually understand the topic, and I've seen this work, when done properly. But like much of what I suggested, it was rejected as ridiculous, probably because editors were accustomed to thinking of WP:COI as some kind of blameworthy thing, an accusation. It's just a reality: experts are almost always attached to their topic. It's hard to become an expert if you aren't!
Were I to follow your suggestion, I'd simply stop editing Wikipedia, other than odd stuff I notice from time to time, which is what I'd already done, until the cold fusion ban expired. If that's what you want, tell me, I respect your judgment. I'll tell you this, though: no expert, familiar with the field, would think that our article was anything other than silly and very out-of-date, compared to what has been published in sources we most respect, over the last five years. And everyone who has been expert on this topic has been banned, two of them courtesy of JzG. The few editors willing to work to add positive material mostly don't understand it, or, if they do, they don't understand Wikipedia guidelines or don't agree with them. I understand both and agree with them as well. --Abd (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Basically, I'm out of here, unless I'm asked to return. There is no support for expert advice; if it contradicts the opinions of the virulent anti-fringe faction, they will act to exclude it, not just from the article, but from Talk as well. And there is no protection, and the most blatant, practically rabid, attacks on a "fringe" editor are tolerated and even encouraged, and the Climate Change arbitration is likely to only scratch the surface, a minor shift. ArbComm doesn't get it and is, effectively, part of the problem. On a good day, the ArbComm clock is right twice. I've concluded that Wikipedia is indeed hopeless, unless some major shift occurs, so I'm not wasting my time any more. I thought I'd give it a shot. It's not better than it was, it's worse. Quite a bit worse. The editors who, once upon a time, would negotiate balance, are almost all gone. Those left don't seem to understand fundamental policy, and that is the fault of the founders, who never really explained it. "Instruction creep," they called it. (In fact, there was never really consensus on much of this, just sets of shallow compromises, unstable and deliberately made vague so as to retain maximum power for those with buttons. Not surprising, J. This is what organizations do, when structure to prevent it is not put in place at the beginning, it's like clockwork.) Thanks for your help and support in the past. As to the present, too little, too late, I'm afraid. I was thinking of asking for a mentor, but ... it's just not worth the effort. Bye. --Abd (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it's not that I ran into opposition. That could be expected. It is that the opposition was so blatantly POV, so blatantly offensive, as I could show -- and you know I know how to do that --, but there was no adequate support. I got WP:RSN approval of that paper I helped with as "reliable source," in spite of attempts to shoot it down, but that means nothing if there is no editor watching Cold fusion who will help. I proposed sourced edits, ones that had consensus once upon a time, over a year ago, and that were reverted out by an abusive admin action under protection, as found by ArbComm, and ... nothing but complaints about me, personal attacks, no action on the article. What's been done at cold fusion is to block and ban a POV, anyone expert on the topic will be attacked, if they are persistent and know guidelines and policy. Cranks are ignored, for the most part, if they stay away from the article. There is an appearance of "consensus" at the article because one side has been decimated by bans and blocks, and the other side is supported and encouraged. --Abd (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Jehochman, Thanks for the link to the information about the rollback function. It's not a tool that I could ever see myself needing since I tend to go in for direct amendments where appropriate. But I got interested in the mechanics of it, because I have noticed over the years how some people seem to be able to revert a whole series of edits in one go, whereas I have never been able to figure out how that is done. I then began to suspect that this feature is linked to the rollback function.

Anyway, it was this recent revert here which has interested me in particular [9]. I don't intend to re-revert because I am not overly concerned about the content issue as such. I was merely doing some tidy up edits such as improving the grammar with conjunctions etc. and I also did a bit of rewording of the content. However, I was a bit taken back to discover that all my edits had been reverted in one fell swoop on the grounds that I hadn't first discussed the edits on the talk page. Maybe I have got it wrong, but it did appear in my view to be an abuse of the rollback tool. If I am wrong, I'd like to know how to revert more than one edit at a time without the rollback tool. Certainly it's news to me that one has to discuss changes on a talk pages before making them. I read that wikipedia encourages bold editing. There could be an ownership problem at that page but I'm not going to get involved if that is so. I would however be interested to know why such an uncontroversial subject like Mozart has been semi-protected for such a long period of time. I can't think why 'Mozart' in particular should be singled out for a sustained campaign of vanadalism. Maybe I'll take a look through the history and see what kind of vandalism it is.

Anyway, I'll leave the matter to your own discretion. Thanks once again for your help. David Tombe (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This diff [10] is not a rollback; it's a standard revert. You can tell because there's a custom edit summary diverting conversation to the talk page. This is a perfectly acceptable use of boldly edit, revert, discuss. One does not need to discuss changes before editing, but if somebody dislikes changes they are free to revert and suggest discussion. At that point, discussion is mandatory, or else you risk starting an edit war. Jehochman Talk 19:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, I see. So I edited. He reverted a group of edits in one single action. But he didn't suggest discussion, and instead issued a rebuke for the fact that discussion hadn't already taken place in advance. So his actions didn't precisely fall into the sequence of (1) boldly edit, (2) revert, (3) discuss. His actions fell into the sequence (1) boldly edit, (2) revert and rebuke, (3) walk away.

Anyway, what I would like to know now is how do I revert a series of edits all in one go, without having the rollback facility. I have never been able to figure out how to do that. I can go to the history page and click on an 'undo' for any given edit, and it will work providing that subsequent edits have not built up to the extent that it can't be done. But how would I remove seven edits by another editor all in one swoop? It sounds like there must be a simple method for doing this. What am I missing on the history page? David Tombe (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi David. Go to history and click on any two little circles of the revisions of your choice. Then click compare revisions. You will see two revisions: The old (on the left) and the more recent (on the right). Then click on the left (the old version) and open it in edit mode. Following that, save the old version. That sets back the edits to the old version. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) WP:Twinkle can also "rollback" multiple edits from the same user without using the formal rollback option. If there are multiple edits from the same person below the edit you choose to rollback, Twinkle will ask you if you want to rollback that edit or all of them. If you don't use IE as your browser, look into Twinkle not for that (or not just for that), but for the other things it does. Ravensfire (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert and comment

Re. [11]: I see no block evasion - the main account is not blocked, and the user is not banned. He should stick to one account, but since the PG account has been lost, he needs to pick one to participate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan
Last: 05/22/2010
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to post on Admins noticeboard

Hi Jehochman, i have replied to your post on the Admins noticeboard in this section here with the difs of posts i made on the talk page before readding the neutrality tag. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that thread has grown beyond its usefulness. I responded to your concern, but I suggest not adding further length to the discussion. Happy editing, Jehochman Talk 14:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For [13] Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehochman Talk 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You aren't stupid

So you should not have written this [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Only tangentially relevant, but: It seems quite clear to me that Roger Davies meant to say something like "[...] about ownership of many accounts there's no dispute", and in trying to turn this into idiomatic English came up with a sentence that said something else. Hans Adler 21:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 User:Jehochman is not magic pixie dust. Jehochman Talk 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Nor, indeed, should you have said that. In case this isn't clear: I was pointing out that CU had been used as magic pixie dust to tar PG2 to accounts that are nothing to do with him. This is a position that in the past you yourself have noted and been in favour of. Had PG been treated properly - ie, told what he was actually accused of by the blocking admin instead of being carelessly templeted and then carelessly denied talk page access - all this could have been sorted out with far less fuss. What are your thoughts on the matter? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A second pair of eyes

Hi Jehochman, hope all's well with you. Do you remember User:LemonMonday? Well he's back again and he's made some sort of claim about misconduct on my part[15][16] (thread here[17]). Can you look it (sorry about the length) I've already warned him for WP:BATTLE and WP:OTHERPARENT[18] and I want another pair of eyes on his conduct subsequent[19][20].
I did inform TFOWR of this earlier but was before LemonMonday's response. PS can you give me a sanity check on my warnings to MickMacNee in that thread too (I'm open to an old-fashioned trout slappig if I'm wrong)--Cailil talk 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're probably away but when you get a chance this needs a quick look. Recent edits from LemonModay really take the biscuit[21] and the whole darn cookie jar[22][23][24][25][26]. As far as I'm concerned he's over the line re: WP:BATTLE but because he's accused me and others who are working to enforce the community probation in this area of some spurious misconduct I'd like outside input on it. And again I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong--Cailil talk 19:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Just walk away. Let him get really bad until we can issue an indef block. I don't like placing short blocks. Jehochman Talk 20:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for looking at it--Cailil talk 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Enough

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Enough has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You have done the very best thing to make sure this template is widely known and used. Thank you! Jehochman Talk 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment location

Was there a reason behind posting this comment on his userpage rather than his talkpage? Useight (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The alternative account talk page used to redirect to the main account. I very much wanted to handle this quietly so as not to tarnish the main accounts reputation, as I saw they were an admin hopeful. Jehochman Talk 10:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Was unblocking G.C in order to comment at ANI a good idea? Some people like TR might see this as a double-standard. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to pre-empt Jehochman but G.C is under discussion for a full permament/indef site-ban. If that were raised vis-a-vis TR I'd unblock him. Similarly if he was being brought to ArbCom. TR's situation is different he's blocked and restricted not site-banned. Just my 2c anyway--Cailil talk 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There was a discussion and the consensus was to unblock so he could respond. Each case turns on its own facts. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledged - just don't want to set the wrong precedents. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thing That Should Not Be

What's this about? Wrong user? - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to give me a minute to type out a thoughtful block message. The message explains things. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a bit unnecessary considering the time since the last edits (and this user doesn't have a history of not being responsive). Should have brought this up before blocking imo -shrug- - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No, anybody who posts a message with an edit summary including "User {username} gets fucked up the ass" should be blocked first, and questioned later. You'd need to look at their deleted contributions to see what I saw. Jehochman Talk 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I took a look at the edits in question, but considering this was a day ago, there's no need for a block. Not really anyway, if the problem is the edit summaries: Blocking will stop that until the issue is resolved and the user unblocked. Equally, leaving the user a friendly reminder will stop it until the issue is resolved. So no real need for a block. Anyway, maybe we should see about getting Twinkle changed to allow the user to not include the title (or even to do this automatically for G10), but still warn (in the mean time users can simply select the option to not warn at all, and then leave a manual warning if need be). - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If we agree, for the sake of argument, that there was no rush to block, there is also not rush to unblock. This is an alternative account, autoblock is turned off, and the user seems to only use it sporadically. I am trying to be circumspect and not leave messages all over the user's main account talk page, as this appears to be a case of unintentional disruption. Because the alternative account is only used sporadically, I needed a way to stop the activity until we are sure it won't happen again. Yes, I agree that Twinkle should be improved that that it is not unintentionally used to further harassment. This may even be one of the troll's objectives, to get their harassment messages spread via Twinkle, and to get innocent (but clueless) users in trouble. Finally, there is an issue that the alternative account's username is bad, because it strongly suggests that the user is violating Wikipedia policy. We regularly soft block usernames like User:Vandal. Jehochman Talk 15:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not rushing to unblock, as you say there's no point to rush it now that the user is blocked. Also, I agree that the edits were disruptive, I also agree that the disruption was caused unintentionally. Therefore all the needs to be done is bring the disruption to the user's attention. Something which the block no doubt does ;), but which I personally feel could have been done just as effectively with a friendly talk page notice. Anyway, I talked to The Thing on IRC, and he's happy to manually warn for pages with attack titles. I don't really see a problem with the username - the account is clearly indicated to be an alternate account. In-fact, the username helps to do this, although maybe "The Thing alt. acct." or similar would be less likely to be mistaken for an abusive use of alternate accounts, using "sock" isn't likely to throw users off - as it is clear the account is not an abusive sock. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't immediately clear to me that this wasn't an abusive account. Quite the contrary! Only after I dug into the matter did I conclude that it was a legitimate alternate account. If the careless Twinkling had been the only issue, I would not have blocked. The combined effect of the bad acts and the bad username tipped the scales for me. Since you have secured an agreement, I will unblock now, but do tell the user to get that username changed to something that does not look like a troll account. User:The Other Thing That Should Not Be might be a good one. It's also disruptive to have a username that makes people get very concerned every time they see it. We have hundreds of active administrators. The first time each one sees this account they should not have to spend a few minutes investigating to determine that the account is acceptable. That's a lot of wasted effort. Ask him to pick a username that doesn't generate false positives! Jehochman Talk 15:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
See User_talk:The_sock_that_should_not_be, his unblock request seems to also deal with the issue of the account name. So all should be well. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned about renaming my alternate account again, because it's been renamed an inordinate amount of times already. Are you sure the 'crats won't complain if I request yet another rename? The sock that should not be (talk)
I am not a bureaucrat, and I'm not sure what they'll say, but I think if you point them to this conversation and ask politely, they will not be upset with you. Jehochman Talk 18:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Done The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And a 'crat has rejected the request. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As it's User:The Thing That Should Not Be's alternate account, an unintended autoblock to The Thing's account might occur (unless you already know it's the alternate account). mechamind90 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock disabled. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a note, I only use this on public networks/terminals, I never use my main account anywhere outside my home, or a relative I'm visiting, unless the network I'm using is a trusted wireless network protected with WPA, and I'm using my personal laptop, as is the case with my school's wireless connection. Unless it's a rangeblock of the entire school, my main account should not be affected by any blocks made to my alternate. The sock that should not be (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced

Resuming this discussion. I would like an explanation of what exactly you thought was "disruptive" because I see no logical reason for this block whatsoever. Not only that, your unblock message even confirmed that you thought it was disruptive, and it was not an accident. Such a statement is not to be made lightly. So either one of two things is going on here, either (1) you are not willing to admit that you made a mistake, or (2) you really think something was disruptive here. If it's the former, well, that's a problem, and if it's the latter, then I really need some indication of what exactly you think was disruptive. Unblocking doesn't just "make everything go away", especially with a message like that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the conversation above. If you don't think posting edit summaries or comment that include severe sexual harassment is disruptive, we'll just have to disagree. Twinkle or other automation is not responsible for the content of edits; the user is. What action do you want at this time? Jehochman Talk 10:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I read it, and I think that Twinkle is the fastest way to get rid of those pages. The edit summaries can always be deleted later. Do you really think it's disruptive to mark the page for deletion in the fastest manner possible? I don't. Then again, one of my very first edits did the exact same thing. What would I prefer? An unblock message that had said you made a mistake, not one that implies the user understood what was done wrong. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The best thing to do would be to find an administrator and have them block the IP, and purge all it's contributions via deletion or revision deletion. Using Twinkle was a really bad idea because it spread the troll meme to other pages. The user in question was not a newbie; they have been to RFA at least four times. They should know this by now. Jehochman Talk 15:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
So you decided to block first and ask questions later. I could understand this if it were clearly disruptive intent, but last I checked we don't have anything in the blocking policy for blocking users that are acting in good faith, and WP:VAND even calls that out. And with ACB and autoblock, also, not just a soft block. I'm not sure what was a worse idea: using Twinkle making summaries which would need to be deleted later, or making such a block on obviously good-faith attempts to clean up vandalism. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, if you are going to misrepresent facts, I am going to stop responding to you. Autoblock was specifically disabled moments later, and the main account was not impacted in any way. Some edits are bad enough that there is a need to stop the user until they are informed and agree not to make any such further edits. This was a protective block placed purely to stop the bad edits. Whether they were intentional, unintentional, good faith or bad faith, those edits needed to be stopped surely and swiftly. Blocking was the best way to accomplish that. We can disagree about that. What farther action are you seeking here? Jehochman Talk 15:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm seeking that you appropriately mark in the block log that the block was unnecessary, not that "disruption was unintentional" when there really was no disruption. If we can't agree on that then I guess there's nothing more to do here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
We are not supposed to use the block log for making notations, whether we agree or not on what the notation should be. This matter has been resolved; whatever misunderstandings may have existed are cleared up, and we should all get back to business. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Please be aware of this legal threat regarding "posting information not relevant to Mr. Wolk's area of expertise" and demanding the article be deleted. Also interesting: Ms. deGraff's employer and a Wikipedia editor's recent admission that contradicts this earlier implausible claim. THF (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The best you can do is totally ignore this situation. Your involvement can only antagonize the subject and might even complicate things. Let those of us with no prior involvement whatsoever deal with the situation. Hope you are well, and that you enjoyed yesterday. Jehochman Talk 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The three candidates I knew personally all lost their elections, so it was bittersweet. And for some reason I'm pessimistic about 2012. As for this stuff, I'll stay far away: I've already been sued once for what commenters on a website I had nothing to do with said (even after that other website deleted the comments), and got involved here hoping to squelch this one in the bud when it popped up on my Google alert. Boo's been blocked and everyone else seems to have a handle on it. For what it's worth, the allegedly libelous statements sued on in Wolk v. Olson aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia article (which just says I "criticized" Wolk, which is questionable), but there's no telling what some litigants will consider libelous.
Separately, if a person has two meat-puppets who work for the same marketing firm, and one of the meat-puppets makes a legal threat, shouldn't there be some consequences for the second meat-puppet? THF (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for commenting there, needs a bit of Admin attention. Whole situation really needs rewinding back to before any of it started. Looking for the right balance of good faith and action is what is needed and thanks to you for that. The whole issue smells of socks imo. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The strongest action, believe it or not, is to expose the facts and speak about them. Since I've done that and commented at AfD, I will refrain from using sysop access in the matter. No doubt some other admin will come along and do that when the time is ripe. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello, could you as the previous blocking admin comment? Thanks,  Sandstein  07:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry again Jehochman but this needs an eye kept on it. I know LM was unblocked stating that they'd raise an RFC on the whole 'British Isles thing' but this[27] as it is currenly presented is an assumption of bad faith cast in a battleground mentality. I have noted to LM at the RFC the issues with it including the lack of evidence; incorrect categorization of the RFC; repetetion of the question asked at the page's recent MFD; and I would ask, as I will be away for the next few days, that this be reviewed over the next 72 hours. LM deserves the chance to reformat the RFC in line with policy within a reasonable period of time but if this is not done or if there is undue delay fixing the POINTY issues I see this as a violation of WP:DE and the terms of LM's two recent unblockings. I will be notifying TWOFR and Sarek of Vulcan of this post--Cailil talk 15:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Premature" Submission

FYI, the situation here, which you participated in, has been resolved. I expected one of the admin coordinators would have seen my reminder on our noticeboard and would have deleted it before it was noticed by anyone else. Sorry for the confusion, Sven Manguard Talk 19:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you're not running.  :-( Jehochman Talk 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I actually think I'd do a bang up job, but I've only had an account for a month. I'd be laughed out of contention. By the way, can you do me a favor and take that rap from my "submission" and place it in User:Sven Manguard/Sandbox? I really want it back. Sven Manguard Talk 23:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Here you are rap. Jehochman Talk 00:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
That was far too simple for me to figure out on my own. Thanks. Sven Manguard Talk 00:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I mention you in this request for clarification of the ArbCom Climate Change case. [28] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

SMirC-puke.svg I think people have tested limits enough; I wish they'd stop. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@Polargeo: Are you still allowed to talk about CC, or have you been topic banned? I can't bother to check right now, but when I come back, I will, and if your names are on the list of topic banned editors, I will block you if your comments are still here on my talk page. This page is not to be misused. Get it? Jehochman Talk 12:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
@Polargeo: Maybe I'm joking, maybe I'm not. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
@Polargeo: Just one question: are you topic banned from climate change, or not? Please answer with a maximum of three and a minimum of two characters (e.g. Yes or No). Thank you! Jehochman Talk 13:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • Remember the text I added that you removed reminding you that humorous and sarcastic was welcome on this page (see top of your talkpage) thankyou Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't block you did I? Humorous and sarcastic comments are welcome, but I get to be the judge! Haw, my talk page, my rules. Jehochman grins wickedly. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Evil. Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I can't wait until my kids see the next Harry Patter movie. When we get them home and put them to bed, I am going to practice my Voldemort imitations. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

Not on behalf of ArbCom, but as a public service announcement... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice - COI discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_THF_and_subject_Arthur_Alan_Wolk. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Now also at WP:ANI due to issues involving No Legal Threats. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, this arose because you made a false accusation that I violated WP:COI. As WP:COIN states, Please note that the conflict of interest guidelines do not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page. Since I did not edit mainspace and since I disclosed my conflict of interest, I did not violate WP:COI. Cirt has made false allegations about me to three message boards in retaliation for an editing dispute at Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#WP:COATRACK. Can you stop his harassment, please? I also need oversight, because his false accusation could result in another meritless lawsuit against me (this very real concern of mine is what Cirt is caling a "legal threat"). THF (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

THF continues to make veiled legal threats on multiple pages. Jehochman, my WP:COIN report only references on-Wikipedia comments, from THF himself. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of Tothwolf by Theserialcomma

Hello there. I happened to notice that Theserialcomma has been on Tothwolf's case again. I considered filing an arbitration request personally, but all the formatting and templates and instructions there made my head spin, so I decided to come to you instead based on this from the amendment request.

Theserialcomma has been editing Eggdrop again. All of his edits are removal of content, and most are reverted by editors uninvolved with the dispute between Theserialcomma and Tothwolf. This can be seen from the history. He also has been repeatedly accusing Tothwolf of COI in his edit summaries [31] [32] and on the talk page of Eggdrop [33] and the talk page of previously uninvolved IRCWolfie [34]. Also this personal attack, after it was found in the arbitration amendment request that boomeranged on Miami33139 that repeatedly calling someone "paranoid" is a personal attack. Seth Kellerman (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma posted a highly offensive rant after I blocked them. They most likely will not be returning. Jehochman Talk 11:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, could someone have a look over the Eggdrop article and let me know of any potential NPOV issues from my adding sources and citations? I don't think I violated the neutral point of view policy, and no one other than Theserialcomma has ever really taken any issues with my edits, but a few extra pairs of eyes to check it over would still be good. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea. Ask User:DGG for help or start a thread at WP:COIN. Jehochman Talk 11:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Will do, thanks! --Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Still on the subject of Theserialcomma, I'd like to ask your opinion on whether this is worth filing an SPI over. After you blocked TSC, he claimed he'd already registered a new user account.

I mentioned above how Theserialcomma and I crossed paths at Tucker Max. Duke jd made his first wikipedia edit to that article. While new users frequently head straight to that article, this particular one has done something further that makes me suspect it is TSC reincarnated. I'd rather not describe it publicly lest he take note and edit differently to avoid scrutiny, but I'm calling DUCK.

Anyway, if it is TSC, he'd be dodging a block. Seth Kellerman (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

While I previously had no reason to go looking, after the recent sockpuppetry threat [35] and one previously, [36] I did some checking and there appears to be a pattern of sockpuppetry that goes back to at least 2007. Per WP:LTA the details probably shouldn't be posted on-wiki (at least not yet) but feel free to ping me via email and I'll provide some links and diffs. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
flag Redflag I am not a checkuser. You need one. Hello, do I have a friendly talk page stalker with checkuser ops? Jehochman Talk 00:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess there aren't any lurking about? What should be done with all this material? It really doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that should be posted on WP:SPI. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I've emailed the material to functionaries-en. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:GAC work on SS Edmund Fitzgerald article

Thank you for the Barnstar! Please lend you expertise where you notice the need during the quest for a WP:GAC for the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

More direct link is here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG. I hope somebody unblocks him soon. Jehochman Talk 00:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for the post on ANI. I should have come on here first to discuss the issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Recurring chronic issue

Jehochman, refreshing your memory about  Confirmed socking and meatpuppeting that was a chronic problem at Werner Erhard/Landmark Education related articles - from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Unfortunately, it appears this may be reappearing again, at the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. You had previously commented about one of the  Confirmed socks involved that commented at this particular AFD, see diff link. Thoughts on what should be done about this? -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Afd is heading for a keep result. Any socking there is immaterial to the outcome. If it somehow gets deleted, go to deletion review and escalate the matter. If the troublemakers continue to harass you, try WP:SPI, WP:RFAR. Jehochman Talk 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. SPI can be used for meatpuppets?
    I think so. Just provide evidence. Blocking can be done on a behavioral basis. If not, you'll be told no (read the directions too, don't count on me). In that case, simply copy and paste the content to WP:ANI. WP:SPI is better because the editors monitoring tend to be more professional, and there's less peanut gallery effect. Jehochman Talk 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. RFAR is not the best option, remember what happened last time [37]?

-- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think remedies 5.1 and 8 from [38] could be applied to this issue, seeing as how Landmark Education is considered by multiple scholars to be an outgrowth of that other group? -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. You can propose a sanction at WP:AE and see what happens. Jehochman Talk 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, thank you, appreciate the responses. -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Just thought you should know...

The IP editor you've been in conflict with on Talk:Nigger has decided to lie about their communication with you in this edit summary, saying that 'you said it was okay to repost', when in reality you did no such thing.— dαlus Contribs 10:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I plan to ignore that editor, rather than engage in conflict. If you want to follow up, you are welcome to do so. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


I've answered your ACE2010 question here. Feel free to ask for a clarification. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Add Charles Koch to the pages I'm disengaging from. It will be frustrating to ask Wikipedia to enforce its policies consistently at that page. But if right-wing editors tried to do to a left-wing BLP what these editors are doing to this BLP, they'd have been blocked. THF (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh? I will look when I get time. Jehochman Talk 04:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread Needs Your Comment

See here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed.

Will you assist me with the diffs please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please. I don't know what exactly to do. Actually it is all there on my contributions page, and at user talk:RegentsPark, talk:British Empire, and user talk:SpacemanSpiff and my talk page and my block log anduser talk:YellowMonkey. I just want help with the procedure, I hope I am not breaking any rules with this. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So, go to one of those pages, and click the History tab. You'll see a list of edits. Find the one that is relevant and click the "prev" link to see how that version of the page differs from the prior version. Grab that url from your browser address bar and then paste it into your post, surrounded by "[" "]" brackets. You can also read Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Jehochman Talk 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh! Diff meant diff on the contributions page of a user, I found it out by hit or miss. Thanks nevertheless. I pasted my earlier edit on notepad and then put the diff at the relevant places and put [] around the URL as you have suggested. Thanks again. Wonder what to do with the ~~~~, I will leave the time stamp as it is. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If I edit my own post, sometimes I put five ~ after it to generate another timestamp. Like this: Jehochman Talk 18:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC) and 18:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a question please. This is about the ANI, I want to know, is it better to let others to discuss the issue and watch? What is the protocol?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)04:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about red flag template

Hi Jehochman -- I just noticed on a page where previously there had been a red flag, now it said "checkuser requested." I tried to figure out why and eventually saw it seems to have been a change you made here. Did you realize this made all "red flags" currently in use into a "checkuser requested"? It seems that finding a new template, if that's necessary, would be better than changing one that was already in use. Thanks for any explanation. Mackan79 (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I was going to revert my edits, and then create a new template and category, but got interrupted in the middle. Will look at this tomorrow. Jehochman Talk 03:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good. Mackan79 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this an approved ACE questionnaire?

[39] Tijfo098 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion and agreed to allow editors to ask as many questions as they wanted on the questions talk page. Candidates are not required to answer. Jehochman Talk 20:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: election discussion

  1. You've wrote about Campaing of harrassment. I certainly disagree with such definition, and welcome you to raise any necessary action if you feel like it. As a side note - I didn't intend to comment on it anymore during elections (that's why I've crossed my initial comments out and added previous comment to explain it), as for community support - see you on appropriate discussion later. Ipsign (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. As you removed it from one candidate discussion page and I'm not sure if it's within policies to remove this kind of stuff, could you please either (a) restore it or (b) remove similar sections from the other candidates pages? Otherwise it would be certainly unfair to other candidates. Ipsign (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it from all candidate pages. If you know of any I missed, you can point me to them. I am quite sure it is not your intention to harass anybody, but that is my unvarnished impression of the effect. We don't want to a good faith discussion to turn into a chilling effect, or to taint an candidate's chances by having a controversy posted on their page that doesn't really belong there. Feel free to debate the merits of your position on the main election talk page, or on the post-election feedback pages, or an RFC page. You are welcome to your opinion. I'm only asking that we keep this debate centralized and away from the individuals who have done absolutely nothing wrong. Thank you for your kind understanding. Jehochman Talk 17:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Move of question and answer

Hi. In moving follow-up discussion of Shooterwalker's question from my questions page to its talkpage, you inadvertently broke the dialog right in the middle of one of my answers. (You may have been misled by a missing timestamp; I can't seem to decide whether answers to these questions call for signatures, inasmuch as no one but me would be answering, and some sections on the talkpage have ten or so questions.) I fear that as a result of the move, neither the first part of the discussion (on the main page) nor the second part (on the talkpage) makes much sense.

I'm not certain that any change was really necessary here (it's not as if this became an excessively lengthy or ungainly discussion), but if per the election rules you don't feel comfortable restoring things the way they were outright, could you please refactor so as to break the discussion at the end of an answer, and add a link indictating where it continues?

Thanks for your help. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We are drawing the line in the same place for all. I am sorry if I misinterpreted the difference between question and discussion. It looks like you indented some of your content, which I mistakenly thought was Shooterwalker responding. It is fixed now, I hope. Jehochman Talk 12:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


...why? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

...and why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The first time I mistakenly and unknowingly hit the rollback button (with a stray ring finger on the outer mouse button), I worried my account had been hacked, but couldn't think of how that could be and why there had been only one stray, meaningless edit. Then it happened again the next day. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Airplane + Wifi + Turbulence + Touchpad = Badness. Jehochman Talk 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Happens to me all the time. I've learned to keep the pointer off the left-hand side of the screen any time I bring up my watchlist or recent changes -- if its initial position happens to be over a "rollback" button, there's a chance I'll click it. (It's most embarrassing when you don't catch it right away.) Antandrus (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
At least not so bad as blocking oneself.[40] Jehochman Talk 15:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Spot of advice

Hi Jehochman, sorry to bug you with this[41] but given LevenBoy's MedCab antics (at one point he unclosed the case[42]) and his frankly bizare comment at ANI[43] I wanted some input on this. LB is under civility parole he's just back from 1 month block since then I've given him rope but his behaviour has not improved. The first diff in this comment is just the latest and worst example of it. I am also fed-up with the game playing by this account [44]. I know you warned him about having a stepping-stone mentality vis-a-vis arbcom, I did so too (see my talk page). I'm left in a limbic position here and would appreciate an over-view: would it wrong to block in this situation?--Cailil talk 10:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like to block people on holidays. If he keeps it up, I'll indef him tomorrow. Jehochman Talk 14:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem - I hope he takes your advice--Cailil talk 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, Jehochman, I did not "change my mind". I always had something better than I think you assumed on the first reading. I appreciate that Wikipedia admins are unpaid and limited in resources and responsibilities. I appreciate that you all deal with a constant tide of very obvious crap (by which I mean clearly vandalistic or troublesome editing). I am sure that after a while it colors your opinions and shortens your sympathies and the temptation just to 'shut the noise up' without looking closer at the actual causes must be very strong.
What I was looking for was exactly what I was asking for which. A frank and honest 'off the record', 'off field' chat with Cailil, in which I was not being constantly threatened with blocks, bans and accusations. I wanted to clear up outstanding matters (which includes content, it all relates to content) and to allow him to define clearly the sanctions he unilaterally put on me, and that he is constantly using against me. To understand how he sees the big picture (again, the content/bias issue).
I think you really should allow the mediation to go ahead. It is an insult of my integrity to suggest that it was insincere and merely about "stressing" Cailil (in truth, it is a big of a bad joke as I am the one being threatened all the time!). Sometimes it is best to allow the air to be cleared not keep suppressing issues and individuals. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, as you rightfully agree, the British Isle issue will more than likely end up at arbcom or somewhere else. I have not yet navigated the whole Wikipedia system and do not know how it works. This will require discussion without all parties. I would prefer for that discussion not to be cast in the a pejorative light.
I don't think I have a "mistaken view of Wikipedia". In fact, I think I have a very clear and accurate view of one part of the Wikipedia where the system is not yet complete and needs developing. Not just relating to the British Isles renaming dispute which because of the history and legal statuses is quite unique, but, in general relating to these nationalistic or territorial type conflicts where real world issues, lobbying and propaganda spill onto the Wikipedia. My commitment to the Wikipedia is protecting it from a tendency towards inaccuracies not some contrary nationalistic motivation.
I think there is a tendency from individuals in your position, e.g. admin, outsider, just to see things as simplistic divides whereas if you engage at a closer level, they are actually more complex. My experience to date is also that there is so much petty dishonesty or manipulation that I can understand how it is very difficult to recognise or believe when someone is being sincere. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the situation may be, as a perceived single purpose account, you are not going to convince many people to support your view. If you want your opinions to carry more weight, you should diversify your editing and gain experience in other areas of Wikipedia. I've seen this scenario many times before. If you don't heed my advice, it ends with you being topic banned, and then eventually site banned. I don't want that, nor do you. Jehochman Talk 16:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to edit on subjects I actually know something about and we have a bit of a stumbling block in this area at present which is distorting normal editing. Arbcom demands we try every other avenue. The stepping stones are a necessary part of that process.

I think you did a very strange thing and I would like you to explain why. One individual requested mediation with another. You stepped in to shut it down. You went further to make very prejudicial statements such as that I was a "disruptive editor ... seeking vengeance ... attempting to game the system and purposefully inflict stress on an administrator". On one hand you say I cannot have mediation because it is not a content issue, on the other you accuse me on LemonMonday's page of being involved in a content dispute.

From my point of view, you blocked off the path to progress and here you are apparently threatening me with site banning, or making veiled threats, as well. Why? You are not involved in the topic area. I do not see you have any connection to it at all. I want to be able to talk things through with Cailil in a safe place where I am not being persistently threatened, and from a content point of view, and you are whipping things up.

The relationship between ordinary users and admins is not equal. I cannot threaten an admin. I cannot punish an admin. I cannot block or stop an admin from doing what they enjoy. What has become clear recently is that Cailil is also engaging himself in the content aspects of the British Isles renaming dispute making threats and blocks as well.

I want to get clarification from him of what he considers acceptable etc and to find common ground. Why block that? --LevenBoy (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy you didn't even bother to ask me about mediation. Secondly your problem with a community sanction is your problem not mine and the community's. Mediation is not a space to redefine WP:CIVIL for you. Furthermore there is no dispute to settle - if you don't like WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF that's not my problem. The matter is dead simple, talk pages are not for the expression of opinions about subjects or other editors - it is not a difficult concept to grasp, and neither is AGF (speculation about others is prohibited). Thirdly you have made a serious and false accusation about my involvement in content issues in the above comment if it is not redacted immediately I will seek action. You have been in flagrant breach of your civility parole since your return from your a month long block. In that time rather than edit productively you have wasted my, and other user's time with axe grinding. There is a very simple "path to progress" LB - you stop making ad hominem posts accusing others of anything, speculating on motivations and belabouring points about people's nationality. Finally if you insist on going forward with your "this-needs-to-go-ArbCom-and-I'll-get-it-there" mentality then your use of the dispute resolution processes will be in bad faith.
Wikipedia is not a game and not a battleground, either you learn that and act accordingly by editing in a civil and source based manner or you will be prevented from disrupting those that do - it is that simple--Cailil talk 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but I really wanted to discuss matters with Jehochman on his talk page first. I understand mediation as per the common definition of the term, I am sure most people do, and we are badly in need of it. I followed the instructions on the page.
It may just be cultural but, as I have said before, the way you are interpreting my actions is not the manner in which I am intending to present them. Something is going wrong in translation. I'd like an impartial third party to look at this situation and to be able to communicate it in a manner in which you find acceptable. I have no intent to "axe grinding" or any those other terrible things you are accusing me off. I am not threatening you and I want all this conflict to stop.
How more honest and sincere can I be? --LevenBoy (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
LB, you need to in the very least inform another party of an intention seek mediation - you didn't. You also need their agreement. There also needs to be a dispute - there is no dispute - you can't act beyond the bounds of policy. You are restricted from incivil behaviour. Full stop.
Moreover, dispute resolution is not a ladder to ArbCom - it needs to be enterred into on the basis of finding a resolution to a content matter not doing things by rote to get to ArbCom - that's gaming the system and that's disrutptive editing. You can't neutralize your community sanction by pretending it's my unilateral decision - misrepresenting it as such is also disruptive. You have also failed and refused to remove, redact or strike your accusation of misconduct above - in so doing you are in full and knowing breach of your civility parole, the topic's probation and the basic behavioural requirements for editing wikipedia.
Furthermore Philknight closed the medcam request the 2nd time[45]--Cailil talk 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of mediation policy

Jehochman, I have been reading up on policy and procedure and I believe that you have misinterpreted it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

When closing my request for mediation, you referred to it not being a content issues as the reason for it to be closed [46]. However, I only approached WP:MEDCAB for information mediation not WP:RFM for formal mediation. Reading their pages, only formal mediation states it is for content related issues. On this basis, would you consider withdrawing your position and allow it to go ahead.

Writing frankly, if someone else is willing to take on the case out of goodwill, it really shouldn't concern you in any way at all. Should it? Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Jehochman. If ya do 're-open' it, let me know. I want to 'strike' my comments from it, as it's between Cai & LB. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No comment? --LevenBoy (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Read what I wrote already. Nothing has changed. Asking again won't change the answer. You appear to stubbornly misunderstand the purpose of mediation. It's not my problem if you won't heed good advice from three different administrators. Jehochman Talk 11:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, please. I don't spend all my time insulting others with words like "stubborn", so please don't attack me. I am your senior. My experience of life trumps your experiences in some places, your experiences trump mine in others, and so I look upon you with respect as an equal and, in the Wikipedia system, that is all we are. Equals.
The policies regarding both formal and informal mediation are clearly and simply written. How could I be making a mistake? A bright child could understand them.
Why involve yourself in a situation relating to two other people and a subject area you have no interest or expertise? Trust me, in life it is sometimes just worth allowing two people to sort their own stuff out by themselves. Other people, and other cultures, have other ways of approaching issues from your own.
I'll try Cailil on his own talk page now and see if he responds. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please chime in on my DYK self-nom

Please add your comments and rating to the Brian Halligan section. Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_November_30 Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

The first time I've voted in one of these things & already, one of the candidates I've voted for might not be seated if elected. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly suggest

Strongly suggest you just take a step back from contacting Tariqabjotu at this point. Regardless of whether I agree with him or with you, I think this is a point that has to be made. Nothing more will come from you going after him now. Best, Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I had to notice him about the thread I started on WP:AN, and have no plans to contact him further. He seems upset, and may need time. I don't plan to go after him at all, because I've known him for years and always thought he was a good editor. My post to AN is an attempt to get ITN updated. It's way over due for an update, irrespective of the FIFA issues. Kind regards, Jehochman Talk 16:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised things got heated, and to be honest I think if you'd explicitly cited WP:IAR we might not even be having this talk. But it's now too late for that, so, yeah, time to move on. With that, I'm off for some needed sleep. Have a good day. :) Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Rest easy. This was a lost opportunity for Wikipedia. I came to WP to find the news, saw that the announcement was delayed, and wanted to be sure we had it up right away since I knew others would come here as I did looking for the result. Jehochman Talk 16:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you came here to find the news then you came to the wrong website, quite simply. We are not a news service and have never strived to be. A lot editors believe that there is no benefit in rushing an update on to the main page; it is better to make sure the article is in a decent state first. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have over 30,000 edits and am aware of WP:NOTNEWS. Rules are meant to improve the encyclopedia, not to be an impediment to obviously beneficial actions. Jehochman Talk 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


You have email :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

your arbcom election coordination

Hi, as the elections are almost over I want to thank you for your contributions as a coordinator, and note my appreciation for your edits to my election questions and talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope your experience as a candidate has been positive. Jehochman Talk 00:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes it was, I am proud to have been involved. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You got all the way through the process. That is something to be proud of. Jehochman Talk 02:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

More personal attacks from User:Theserialcomma

I thought you should know that the personal attacks from User:Theserialcomma continued right on the SPI case page with "Theserialcomma" using User:Theserialcomma2 even after they supposedly "scrambled their password" and abandoned User:Theserialcomma. They were blocked for sockpuppetry, but User:Amalthea unblocked the "User:Theserialcomma2" account stating "For the record: I don't see any violation of WP:SOCK on Theserialcomma2's part, so I have unblocked it." and "Theserialcomma2 did not abuse multiple accounts." [47]

Given the continued personal attacks from "Theserialcomma" while using User:Theserialcomma2 (revdel'd by User:John Vandenberg), this seems to be the same type of baiting and harassment that led to User:Theserialcomma's prior blocks and interaction restriction with User:Koalorka.

Given Theserialcomma's repeated comments that he has created a "new account" (and the subsequent creation of User:Theserialcomma2 and User:Theserialcomma3) -- "just so you know, my password has been scrambled and i have a new account" [48] "my new (unnamed) account is unaffected by any of this as i've not edited with it while other accounts were blocked, so it's also not a case of sockpuppetry." [49] "i have a new account (not this one)" "i decided to start over by making a new account" "this is another throwaway account" (from the revdel'd comment from User:Theserialcomma2) ...I don't see how this could be considered anything other than sockpuppetry and further attempts to avoid scrutiny. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jehochman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Tothwolf (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday again

Sorry to bug you Jehochman, but I mentioned you blocks of LemonMonday at a new ANI (related to further revert warring and wikihounding of others) here. Just an FYI.
Hope you're having a good weekend --Cailil talk 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a provisional resolution here. I'm leaving a window open for LemonMonday (and LevenBoy who's used the thread to breach his restriction again) to make a constructive comment within the next 24 hours. If that doesn't happen I'll impose the resolution as stated. If you've any views on it let me know--Cailil talk 19:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Now set fire to the box.

I know I have a lighter here somewhere... HalfShadow 22:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! Please help with WP:MOUNTAIN. Jehochman Talk 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Petrol (gasoline), or are the contents of the box already near the point of autoignition? --Tothwolf (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I ignited my auto once. You'd be surprised how much this upsets the police. HalfShadow 04:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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? (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)


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".[1]
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.[2] Later, however, the website was "ousted"[2] from the Amazon servers.
After WikiLeaks was ousted from Amazon servers it installed itself on the servers of OVH in France.[3] 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.[2][4]

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 [50] and Digg [51]

You know we could IAR and create a protected soft redirect at List of WikiLeaks mirrors to --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)


"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)

Mystery meat

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. RayTalk 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)

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)

Arbitration enforcement request concerning Cirt's editing

This is my talk page, not Wikipedia talk:Complain about Cirt

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 ([52] [53] [54]). 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)
  1. ^ Satter, Raphael G.; Svensson, Peter (3 December 2010) "WikiLeaks Fights To Stay Online Amid Attacks". Associated Press (via The Charlotte Observer). Retrieved 4 December 2010.
  2. ^ a b c Gross, Doug. "WikiLeaks cut off from Amazon servers". CNN. Retrieved 2 December 2010.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "amazon" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ (in French) Expulsé d'Amazon, WikiLeaks trouve refuge en France. 2 December 2010, Le Point
  4. ^ "French web host need not shut down WikiLeaks site: judge". AFP. 6 December 2010. Retrieved 8 December 2010.