User talk:Jehochman/Archive 13

GRB FAC (part 12)

Hey mate. It seems like you've been pretty busy lately with ArbCom/SSI stuff lately, but I just wanted to let you know that I believe I've addressed all of RJHall's GRB concerns that actually relate to the content I wrote. Most of what's left now pertains to the material that you wrote. I can try to address the remaining issues if you'd like me to, but I'd be more comfortable if you took a look at them. Thanks. Also, fun stuff! Tomorrow I'm having lunch with a physics professor to discuss GRBs and/or the articles relating to them. Hopefully I should get some good info/feedback. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

9/11 ArbCom request

Hi - I read your request for amendment of the 9/11 ArbCom case as a request for help. You are a good admin; you take on a lot of challenging issues and you do good work. I don't want you to burn out - that would be a loss to the project. So I'm here to help. What can I do? I'm happy to look over WP:AE requests more actively, to watchlist relevant pages and ride herd, or to be a sounding board if you're undecided on a course of administrative action. I suggested (at WP:RfARB) identifying a go-to checkuser as an efficiency.

I understand where your concerns are coming from. I don't think that people necessarily appreciate the challenge of dealing with sockpuppetry on these topics, which may account for your less than supportive reception. Yes, admins are already empowered to deal with abusive editing. But I think your perspective is informed - as is mine - by the knowledge that sockpuppetry is a judgment call, often a very difficult one with inherent false-positive and false-negative rates. You can make the right call 99 times in a row and get a barnstar or two (if you're lucky), but make the wrong call once and if the stars align a certain way you're out on your ass. Anyone who's seen what you and I have seen would be naive not to recognize that reality hanging over our heads. That's the way the game is played here. I say that only to underscore that I understand why you asked for backup from ArbCom here.

Anyhow, you're not alone. I'm here to help you suck it up. :) Let me know how I can be of assistance. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The main honeypots are Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. If you watch those two pages, you'll see who's causing trouble. Thank you very much. The arbitrator comments are brilliant. If anybody gets in trouble over blocking a newbie, I fully plan to cite those diffs. Yeah, we really need a pet checkuser. My experience is that the community views checkuser as magical truth, even though  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. As long as you get a checkuser, mistaken blocks are no problem. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone will volunteer to be a "pet" - maybe we should use more dignified terms. After all, the more thankless and unrewarding a job, the more extravagant title must accompany it. Right, systems administrator?

I'm sure we're on the same page about the uses and limitations of checkuser - it's most usefully viewed in terms of Bayesian inference, in that it can change one's degree of belief in a hypothesis but not "prove" or "disprove" it. But people are always more comfortable with a technical, semiquantitative result than with a judgment call. It's an interesting issue in medical diagnostics: doctors will consciously or subconsciously accord more weight to a computerized scoring algorithm than to an experienced radiologist's evaluation of a film, even though the radiologist's opinion may be more accurate and the computer may be spitting out obviously counterfactual bollocks. I'm sure there's a name for this cognitive bias, but it's escaping me.

Actually, I thought checkuser would be most useful to clean out sleeper accounts, and to provide links. It might be useful to know if this is one or two users with a bunch of accounts, vs dozens of users with individual accounts who coordinate their efforts here. MastCell ^Talk 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits on WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Jehochman, I'd like to ask you for an explanation regarding your serial deletion of content from the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. I would appreciate if you could explain both the substance of your edits and your conduct, which is clearly detrimental to any constructive editing process. Unless I hear a really convincing explanation from you, this will be a case for dispute resolution. Given that you have been editing on Wikipedia for quite a while, I'm sure that you are not doing this by mistake. --Cs32en (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:NOR. I was cleaning original research and unverified content from the article. You're new here and you should know I've written a few featured articles, so I am well aware of what the content standards are around here. I am of a mind to request that you be topic banned from the arena as you've been a persistent source of disruption since you arrived. Wikipedia is not for summarizing the position of Truthers. It is for summarizing the material that reliable sources report about Truthers. There is a distinct difference between referencing a Guardian article (fine), and referencing a Truther propaganda site. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Email

Jehochman, as I posted on the request earlier today, the case will be opened later tonight. It has been delayed not through fault of the arbitrators, but because there was some confusion over who was clerking this case and other obligations I've had off-wiki. Please be patient, everything should be posted soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's unfortunate the people did not take NYB up on his proposal to resolve this matter. Oh well. Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Live presentation by Richard Gage

Just in case you're interested: A live presentation by Richard Gage is starting at 7pm Pacific Daylight Time, i.e. right at the moment, on [1]. --Cs32en (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Suck it up

Why do you bother? I think the newer Arbcom members are genuinely trying, but the old guard like Bain still think admins are scum. It will take time for them to rotate off. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're all out to instill our POV through a reign of terror. Every edit is sacred, you know. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Carte postale d'Amérique

Dear Gerald, I thought I simply must drop by to see how you are, still here writing your dear little pages I see. I do wish I had time to edit, but "life" is so frantic these days. Darling little Barry lent me Air Force 1 to go sight seeing over New York yesterday, you would not believe how many of the dear natives flocked to the streets to wave and salute as I passed by; it quite restores one's faith in Red Indians, or whatever it is they are descended from. Sadly, I must leave my luxurious travel method in favour of an ice-breaker and journey north to take tea with poor Mrs Palin, who has invited to me to a meet of the local moose hounds. In reality, I expect she wants to sound out my opinions and advice on child care - poor woman, it can't be easy - the way Satnav (or whatever ludicrous name it was) has behaved, but c'est la vie, what can we do? Will be in touch. Regards and Love. Yours ever Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is always a pleasure to hear from you, dear lady. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidental revert

It was accidental. :) I think I beat you at reverting my revert, but I've already apologised to Newyorkbrad. The line length had placed "rollback" directly over the "diff" on my watchlist for a completly different article, and I must have slipped when clicking it. A rather stupid mistake. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A user came to my talk page to ask about a closure of an AN/AE thread and if it could be annotated for clarity. I don't know how WP:AN/AE works, but it seemed reasonable enough so I did so. This was not in any way a comment as to the appropriateness of the closure (as it was my comments regarding an AN closure on an unrelated matter that prompted the editor's query). FWIW my opinion is that it's fine for an initiator to close a discussion if it is no longer necessary. hope this is ok. best, –xeno ^talk 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobots

{{bots}}/{{nobots}}. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You may need to add |allow=MiszaBot III , but not sure... –xeno ^talk 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But, of course.

You won't block the fringe nitpickers who believe that every edit to come out of a large US university is Science Apologist. You'll just be disapointed. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not add fuel to the fire like that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be more believable if the other side weren't busy vigorously piling it on. But, you know, I much like promises, policies that say "DON'T SAY WHERE OTHER CONTRIBUTORS WORK, JACKASS," aren't binding, right? Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I already redacted that stuff, and will happily block anybody who reposts it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite's extreme comments aside, I noticed the AE discussion and was concerned. The edits didn't seem to be disruptive, besides the alleged block evasion, and putting that kind of attention into "block evasion" seems out of balance to me. The edits also didn't look like SA edits to me, though I'm far from an expert on this. While we block editors, and we expect them not to edit when blocked, but it's also not a big deal should it happen that a few edits, particularly not disruptive ones, sneak through, and, for other reasons, I'm inclined to believe that SA isn't block evading; checkuser can fail. Anyway, done, closed, but I wanted to comment to you. --Abd (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand we have a self serving complaint about edits that aren't very abusive. On the other hand we have an editor who's been caught block evading a couple times already. Checkusers can see more than just the IP. I have to defer to their judgment. Behavioral evidence is less reliable in my opinion. The famous User:!! block was based on behaviors, and it turned out to be completely wrong. I personally reuqest Checkuser for each sock case, unless it is blindingly obvious. After the checkuser results are declared I sometimes petition for a different finding and am sometimes successful. In this case, I agree with Lar's finding. The excuses proffered are no different from those commonly offered by all puppetmasters. Past reputation is a factor too.Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

World Trade Center Conspiracy Theory

I read your article not knowing that there was a theory of dynamite in bldgs. Found your article to be informative, well-balanced, well-footnoted and excellent. Twentiethcentury Twentiethcentury (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Trouble

In the interests of keeping the wiki inferno to a dull roar, can you skip this sort of comment next time one occurs to you? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Could you please not delete my comments left on friends' talk pages. Don't pick fights for no reason. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Perhaps I've misunderstood the history I've observed between you two. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem! We occasionally pretend to be antagonists, but we are really friends. (Ooh, I wonder if User:Bishapod can come over to play this afternoon.) Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

3rd largest contributor to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

Did you know you were the third largest contributor (438 edits) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, behind Thatcher 631 (clerk) and Rlevse 695 (clerk)?[2] Ikip (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! And those two are well known troublemakers. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it was interesting :) Is thatcher a clerk too? Ikip (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher was clerk, and might be again. I am not a clerk. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are bumped up to number one then, past the "well known troublemakers", congats! Ikip (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 outbreak

• 2009 flu outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please undo your page move of the 2009…outbreak article, as it was an overly bold administrative move out-of-step with current and past discussions on the talk pages. --Zigger «º» 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an administrative action at all. Any editor can move a page. Feedback thus far has been strongly positive. Tell me, why would we name this article differently from 1918 flu pandemic? Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I misread the log? "2009-04-28T21:20:06 Xeno (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "2009 swine flu outbreak" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (please discuss any proposed renaming on talk page)" --Zigger «º» 21:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Zigger is fully correct here, I would urge you to as swift as possible to move the pages back to their predvious naming. _→AzaToth 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that protection expired (expires 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) a few hours before my move (20:26, 4 May 2009). I will invite Xeno here to comment. When I did the page move I did not see any warnings whatsoever that the page was protected. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

the sysop move protection was and still is indefinite, it was only the edit autoconfirm protection that expired then. _→AzaToth 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I did not think we used indefinite protection to stop move wars, and I am surprised the system did not alert me that I was moving a move-protected page. Let's wait for Xeno to comment before we do anything to further mess up the situation. I have left them a note. Jehochman ^Talk 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You wont get any warnings when you are moving move-protected pages, it is pretty much assumed you should know the status of a page when you are preparing for a move. I don't think it is logical to wait for an eventual comment from Xeno, as we don't know when Xeno will be back here, so you should in the mean time move all the pages back. _→AzaToth 22:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have a life outside of Wikipedia and am just leaving for dinner. I am not going to do this in a rush and potentially screw it up. Feel free to put things back if you think that would be best. That page has very voluminous talk comments, and I did glance at the log and did not notice an indefinite move protection. Surely that was some sort of error, not the intention Xeno had. We don't use indefinite protection to stop edit/move wars. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there was no war, just a sequence of too many well-intentioned editors who assumed that they knew best or that everyone else agreed with them. :-) Multiple moves are disruptive in a popular current-event article with many possible names. The article itself tries to explain why forecasts cannot be made reliably, and I expect Xeno's intention was for the protection to be lifted when "things" calm down. --Zigger «º» 22:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Erm, I left the protection in place per the usual protecting high visibility targets. No fault to Jehochman for the editorial action. I believe a bold move was attemptd on Apr 28 as well and I suggested a proper move discussion be started it never did. So have at it I suppose. –xeno ^talk 23:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking through the talk page (what a mess!), there has been a move discussion, where somebody counted 16 evil votes in favor and 12 opposed. Anyhow, it can wait until a pandemic is declared and then be moved. What we call the article is not critical in the short term. Jehochman ^Talk 23:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, to be honest the whole swine flu thing got to be too active for me to watch all the various pages. –xeno ^talk 12:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Wowest AE report

Hi J.,

I've left a query which is largely directed at you on the arb. enforcement report you recently filed against Wowest. Could you spare a moment to drop by?

Regards,

AGK 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fourteen points"

Hi Jehochman — Do you intend to leave the sentence that included the reference to the source that you just have deleted, or do you intend to remove that sentence from the text? Most of the content of the sentence could be sourced to the BBC Q&A, the "Fourteen points" can, of course, be used as a self-published source, because the article only reports the views of the authors of the paper, and does not treat any content from it as if it were factually true. — Regards.  Cs32en  18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid using primary sources in this article if at all possible, due to substantial "fringiness" of the content. Anything found in a reliable, secondary source can be used while observing WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If reliable secondary sources have not reported a fact, that fact is most likely too trivial or fringe to warrant inclusion in our article. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, can you give me an answer to the specific question that I have included in my previous message?  Cs32en  21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I left the sentence on purpose. Since it is in the lead, presumably it is addressed in greater detail later on with proper citations. Things may not be in the lead if they are not covered in the article body. Jehochman ^Talk 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

9/11 request for amendment

If you're not already aware:

Your statement(s) on the 9/11 conspiracy theories request for amendment is currently at ~1600 words. Could you do a little (well, a lot—the limit is 500 words—of) trimming of it, or at the least place some of it in collapse-boxes? It would help the master A/R page grow a little less unwieldy.

Thanks, AGK 15:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The request is highly stale and should just be archived. I will not waste further time with it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I had received a complaint that the RfAr (neé A/R) page was growing unwieldy, and focussed in on your thread. A more effective way of tackling the length would probably be to simply archive the thread. :-)

On an unrelated note, I've responded to you complaint on my talk page.

AGK 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Welcome back. Jehochman ^Talk 00:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of Donadio

Thank you for your constructive comments on Donadio's case. Rlevse really should apologise for that. As I have pointed out, even if the original remark wsa ambiguous (it wasn't) it doesn't give an administrator the right to cast such a terrible slur like this. Peter Damian (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again

Hi Jehochman — My conversation with AGK is not about your editing conduct, or a complaint about you as an editor. It is about how policies should apply in this topic area. It is true that the specific edits I gave as examples have been made by you. I could have given the deletion of the "In popular culture" section as another example, but this problem seems to be resolved for now. Aside from that, I don't think it would be a good idea to clutter talk pages with personal communication. — Regards.  Cs32en  00:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The article is really very much improved and we should be thinking about a peer review soon in preparation for WP:GAC. Jehochman ^Talk 00:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the article is now better than when I first saw it. So we have some agreement on this point. I have seen your complaint about my response to your recent comment on my talk page at AGK's talk page.

The problem is that you did not just delete the references, but also the information which was based on these references. This may be acceptable if it's a BLP issue, or if the information would be very like false and misleading. In other cases, it is standard practice to insert a {{fact}} tag and wait for some time, so that more appropriate sources can be found.

So in this context, I think it was just logical that I understood you comment as an ironic, if not sarcastic remark. Also, the edit summaries that you have associated with the removal of the sources did not support the assumption that you actually wished that the information would be reinserted into the article, in combination with a better source.  Cs32en  00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement to add a {{fact}} tag. It is better to simply remove unverified, dubious information. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree in those cases in which the information is actually dubious. But is the statement "The magazine Popular Mechanics launched a critical investigation of 9/11 conspiracy theories in 2005." really dubious, just because it is not supported by a third-party source? A third-party source should be found, but is there any real doubt that the information is basically correct? Well, maybe Popular Mechanics actually launched its investigation in 2004 and presented the results in 2005, but that would be a minor error in the statement, and not really misleading.  Cs32en  13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are we writing about that particular article? Is it really that monumental in the history of this topic? If so, it would be covered by other sources. Otherwise, it's original research. We can't synthesize a history by saying here, here and here are important articles about this topic. Who says they are important? We are not competent as encyclopedia writers to make that judgment ourselves. We have to look to what reliable academics and journalists say are the most important articles.Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This reasoning would be correct if we knew that a secondary source does not exist. The problem is that we don't know whether there is a secondary source or not. If a secondary source could have been found, but is not being found actually (for example, because the content had been deleted) then the article would suffer from the fact that a relevant piece of information is not included. My main point is that I think it's appropriate to give editors a little more time to find such sources. Also, Wikipedia policy does not strictly forbid to use primary sources: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." (from WP:PRIMARY) Finding sources on the internet is especially difficult for this article, as the first 100+ sites that any Google search will show are almost invariably non-WP:RS sources. (It helps a bit to insert some words that are typical for newspaper articles but rarely used on other websites, but even then it's difficult.)  Cs32en  14:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, I don't want my talk page being filled with 9/11 conspiracy theory debates. Please continue discussion at the article's talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that we could work toward some, maybe partial, agreement on a policy issue. -- Closing this debate.  Cs32en  15:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

What the hell?

Seriously. I cannot help but hope you secretly know better, because if you don't, I'm not sure if I'm capable of explaining it to you. Our job is to calm things down, not heat them up. Do you really think anyone is served well by discussing a serious RfA problem and a Giano block right next each other on ANI? Isn't there a lively discussion on the 'crats board still on going?--Tznkai (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No there is not. They stiffled it. [3] That's why I started a new thread. I suspect this matter should be taken to WP:RFAR. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

Hi, you were previously involved in a discussion about merging 3RR into WP:EW; please comment at WT:3RR#Merge 3RR into Edit War?. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 13:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FlyingToaster arbitration

Out of curiosity, should FT return from her break and request to be desysoped, will you be going forward with your planned RfArb? I'm not sure that one will be necessary if she gives up the tools willingly, as it looks like she is working on or is willing to work on the plagiarism problems. AniMate^draw 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I will be very glad if she recognizes the problem and resigns. My impression of her will improve greatly. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good. I actually feel the same way, and if she chooses not to resign, I'll be more than happy to participate in an RfArb. Perhaps you should make your intention clear on her talk page. AniMate^draw 18:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by MZMcBride

Regarding the above. In the future please find a clerk and ask them to contact the party. That is our job. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're not already watching that page, and that thread in particular, what more can I do? Where could I ask for help that would be more prominent? I can't help it if the clerks are out to a three martini lunch while all hell breaks loose. Jehochman ^Talk 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

It's the third one that gets them drunk enough to volunteer to be ArbCom Clerks. The first two alone aren't enough. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't be everywhere at once. You can ask via the Clerks' Noticeboard (which is lightly trafficked and watched by all the clerks) or the clerks' mailing list at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Either one normally gets a quick response. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[Talk page lurking.]

Yes, Clerks-l will usually get a very prompt response as all current clerks, a few inactive clerks, and all active and recently-retired arbitrators are subscribed and reading the list; for the quickest action, I'd suggest sending a message in that direction. It's quite difficult to scrutinise every edit to A/R (and, now, it's various subpages), plus every case page, case subpage, and their talk pages, which is why it's always very useful for keen-eyed Wikipedians to draw attention to bits and bobs that need our attention.

AGK 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

spaces in empty self-closing xhtml elements

Hi, Jonathan. I've not reverted you — and note that I made the same edit on the talk page. Anyway, no, the space is not required, but it is considered good form for compatibility purposes;

• http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_2

and MediaWiki is inserting them in the served code anyway — at least to my browsers, which are likely among those you favor. And a lot of tools on and off wiki add these spaces when formatting code. Looking further down the road, we may see all these slashes going away as HTML 5 progresses.

It's been an interesting few days and it's not over yet. I nearly got ahead of Bish on the issue there abouts; I have standing, too and don't look kindly on editors tag-slapping user pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

re: template talkspace contributions

I am simply hoping that no-one else has noticed that lamentable gap in my contrib history - it could make the difference! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

user 194x144x90x118

I elect to not continue discussion on the topic raised by user 194x144x90x118 at CD. See his talk --Ihaveabutt (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to take the time to figure out if they are operating sock puppets, you can file a report at WP:SPI. Jehochman ^Talk 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maxypoda

I am not harassing Bish, nor was I ever. Why is everyone, including you, not taking the time to read. This has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with what I explained quite clearly in the lead. You all tell me to assume good faith, and yet it flies out the window when you assume anything about me. I brought up the matter because I was not aware, I repeat, NOT AWARE that those accounts were of Bish. I did not associate the behavior of the accounts with her, and I had no idea they were.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. Now you know. Now you can drop it. Jehochman ^Talk 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here while someone continuously calls me a liar. Do you have evidence to back up your baseless accusation? Oh wait, you don't. The three accounts listed were not behaving similarly to Bish, in that, they were only editing user talk pages, and were in fact speaking in bad english. They were not confrontational or rude like Bish was to me, so I had no reason to associate them with her. I don't associate similar usernames who have no other tie-ins. If the MO is different I assume it's a different user. You have no evidence otherwise, so stop telling me I'm harassing someone when I'm not.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, whether or not it is your intention, you've been baiting and possibly trolling other users. Please stop, or else I will stop you. Numerous users have told you to disengage, but you feel that everyone else must be wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, everyone else is wrong. I was not baiting anyone, please stop assuming bad faith with me, as are the others. I was baiting no one. That post had nothing to do with her, it had everything to do with the fact that the accounts appeared to be acting like User:Neomewga.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were acting in apparent good faith, I'd expect when told that you were pestering Bishonen's alternate accounts, you'd appreciate that was a problem and immediately stop, instead of continuing to push the matter. Assume good faith has limits. When somebody is told by multiple people to drop an issue, and they continue, AGF starts dissipating. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did drop the issue, or did you not notice? What I then commented on, was not the account, but the assertion I had broken several wikipedia policies, or did you not take the time to read Ched's post, and my reply to it? That post had nothing to do wtih the above thread. Then, when I was told that I was doing A, I decided to try and clear it up, since apparently everyone loves assuming things about me contrary to the evidence and my explanation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Please drop it. Maybe I've just got the wrong pages watchlisted, but all afternoon you've been showing up on my watchlist beating the same horse, and it's starting to get on my nerves. I don't know you, have never encountered you before, have no axe to grind with you, but in the future when I encounter your name, this is what I will remember. The whole project is a little tense just now, and this campaign is adding to the tension rather than relieving it. Please give it a rest. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Jehochman ^Talk 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was clear from the indentation. I was addressing Daedalus. Woonpton (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed a :. I've fixed the indentation to reflect your intentions. Thank you for that clarification. Jehochman ^Talk 00:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to fix it myself but got an edit conflict.Woonpton (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note - I just posted something about this on ANI, but getting overly defensive about misidentifications is a not unusual growth phase in people doing SPI investigations.

Both Daedalus and the community seem to be on short fuses right now. The most important point is that THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SPI INVESTIGATION. If you spend a lot of time looking for things you will find them. Some of the things you find are harmless, and some are well known to others but not you. These are normal parts of any SPIer career.

You have to get to the point that you can just move on from incidents like this, and not feel that you have to be defensive over having spotted the pattern. It happens. Nobody thinks worse of you for spotting it.

Digging the hole / causing the problem didn't really start until Daedalus started being defensive afterwards. The threats unfortunately exacerbate the defensiveness and probably don't help. Good time for everyone to have some tea and do something else for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

The soil in the front has been disturbed; that was a bad day for Noah

By this, did you mean this? But I'm not from the part of Connecticut that Noah Webster called home ... -- Noroton (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I live a short bicycle ride from the Webster homestead in West Hartford. Alas, the proximity has not helped my spelling. Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like you caught it even before I mentioned it. Good thing, too, because every time he turns in his grave, they've got to winch the obelisk back up. I won't tell you how I sometimes make Tony Comstock, who does come roughly from my neck of the woods, turn over in his grave. -- Noroton (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bothroyd

He wrote a fairly widely known book. That's enough to pass speedy, though not necessarily afd. Please revert. I would revert you myself, except you invoked BLP. DGG (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"He wrote a book" is not an assertion of notability. Searching Google and Amazon.com, nothing comes up for this Bothroyd, so it does not seem to be "fairly widely known". The article had no assertion of notability, totally lacked references, had past BLP problems, the subject wanted it deleted, the AfD was unanimously in favor of deletion, and the situation is pregnant with possibilities of further BLP problems. On the whole, deletion was the right thing to do. I don't expect you to agree, as I can't remember you ever supporting deletion of any article (though you probably have occasionally). Deletion review is available if you'd like more opinions. I won't be offended. Jehochman ^Talk 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually Boothroyd, not Bothroyd. If you google:David Boothroyd, you'll see a bunch of his social media profiles with no independent coverage on the first page of results. The book was published in 2001 and is out of print.[4] If you think there are enough reliable sources to write more than a stub, you are welcome to write a biography. What was there was unsourced rubbish. It would be better for you to start from scratch in userspace and then get whatever consensus is necessary to recreate the article. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

never said it was enough to pass afd. It probably will not be. It was enough to pass speedy, as an indication of possible notability. Only that is needed. If you say it was SNOW instead, you moved too fast; had i a chance, I would have said weak keep to make sure the discussion stayed open. I am interested in promoting proper discussion, not saving the particular article--I no longer worry about individual articles, there are just too many of them for me alone to fix. But I save deletion review for the clearer mistakes on articles that will be worth the trouble. Once I and others who follow the rules get those under control, I'll work on ones like this.

But I am seriously offended by "I can't remember you ever supporting deletion of any article (though you probably have occasionally)" in spite of that final qualifier. i think you are-- unconsciously no doubt-- misremembering the views of those who disagree with you. That's not unusual, so let's look at the recent data:

May 6: 2 deletes; May 7, 4; May 8, 1; May 10, 3; May 11, 2; May 12, 1; May 14, 4, May 15: 2. A 10 day span with 19 delete !votes. Yes, I !vote keep more than delete, because most of the articles nominated for AfD are such obvious deletes they don't need me to pile on also. I only bother with the controversial ones. The proportion of my !votes is about 2 keep : 1 merge : 1 delete.

You're a more experienced admin than I by far, so it really concerns me when my willingness to be objective is maligned in this fashion. I'd like an apology. DGG (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've just see today's discussion on the arb noticeboard involving this subject/editor & obviously in the circumstances I would not dream of asking for restoration of the article. I'm only concerned about acknowledging that I do make distinctions between what should be kept and deleted at AfD--and, FWIW, I'm in the top 10% of admins in count of deleting speedies. DGG (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can testify that DGG deletes articles. He's trying delete Connie Bea Hope right now. :( And he doesn't seem to be a fan of fraternities and sororities (even when they've been around a long time) and there are lots of others subjects he's surprised me by voting delete on. Because of the level of respect he commands his votes can be tough to overcome, which I think is a testament to the his exceptional integrity. And since integrity is something Dr. Hochman has quite a lot of as well, I trust you gentlemen will be able to work this out amicably without the need for me to make any bad jokes. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my response! DGG, I think you are more experienced than I, and I think you only act in good faith. My comments were delivered with a dollop of sarcasm. We have disagreed on a few deletion discussions, but I respect your opinion! I am glad you now see the unusual circumstances surrounding this article. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Troll du jour

Well said (I saw the edits in question). Tiny point, to avoid possible misunderstanding: you've made a typo; this was the main article on potus, with a "c" in his first name. I'd just silently correct your comment if I didn't fear that this might lead to a tedious discussion with someone somewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

civility

Jehochman,

I notice all your hard work on WP. It would be good if all CD editors could work on civility, explanation, and less frequently stamping out one line judgments, 'parental' directives, and subject changes. Its a problem not just at CD. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Keith Henson

Issues (again) with an individual switching IPs, adding unsourced material to this article. Can you please have a look? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:RFPP. I don't have time to review it properly. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a brief look. I know Henson well, having worked with him for several years; the IP editor probably knows him too, from what I've seen. Yes, Henson had a company in Tucson, Analog Precision. I did design work for it. Yes, he was married to Carolyn Meinel, this is well-known. I know, our personal knowledge isn't a source, but ... after all .... it does tend to organize the data! I'll take a hand there, the IP editor may need some assistance! --Abd (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you contact him and try to help. It seems that ArbCom wants him to verify his identity before he edits any Scientology topics further. Also, could you watchlist Keith Henson and help keep it free of BLP issues? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some research and found some sources. As you might know, my number one concern is accuracy with information that is of weight, with a concern for efficiency for details. The issue was his dates of marriage to Carolyn Meinel and some other small details, things that if they were dead wrong would be harmless. Anyway, Cirt bounced around for a while but now seems to be okay. And I'll try to reach Keith by email, he's active on the net, still posting to alt.religion.scientology. I'm watching the article now, but I'm fairly lousy at maintaining articles even when I watchlist them, if I don't look quick, it's gone, and I already watchlist so many articles with so much traffic that it takes forever and a half to load. One of the problems with sourcing simple things like the number of kids he had with Carolyn is that most of the sources have a lot more information that I'm not sure we want linked! Basically, autobiographical information from the kids. The divorce papers in Tucson would have all that stuff, but .... I'm not there! This is all, in reality, quite notable but not reliably sourced, for the most part, very hot. What I found for some details was an affidavit Henson filed in 2003 in California that includes a bio. And other misc stuff.

Reading what happened to him.... he was a pretty outrageous guy, in certain ways, but also got tromped on by some very big boots. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't like to cite court papers in biographies because any litigant can make any sort of salacious accusations they like in a filing. Jehochman ^Talk 07:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. This court paper it interesting because it includes an autobiography, so we can assume that stuff there doesn't violate WP:BLP. No claim of neutrality, I forget how I attributed it, but none of this stuff was controversial. He did have a company, Analog Precision. I know because I worked for them as a contractor for a couple of years.

I appreciate the advice

In earnest I do. I'm not sure I agree entirely with your POV on the matter, but I do appreciate the attempt to advise. I am actually not very familiar with what the Arbs are allowed to do and what they are not. I always assume that the principles that apply to all the volunteers at this project also applies to them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing others' comments is generally discouraged. It can be outright disruptive, or merely provocative (even when proper). It is usually better practice to ask the editor to change their own comment. This tends to prevent edit wars and promotes civility. However, there might be a few exceptions.

Hey, I think there is a misunderstanding about Prioryman's statement of non involvement. He might not have realized that the bios you mentioned were Scientologists. LaRouche isn't a Scientologist, is he? Please forgive me for knowing very little about the subject area. I've mainy edited astronomy, shipwreck, disaster, and history articles. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about LaRouche, though I doubt he's a Scientologist. Prioryman also made this comment directly ResidentAntrhopologist about the matter before the comment I linked, and there he claims no involvement in editing about "cults" at all. In fact that comment was the one he was directly being asked about at the RfC. In the diff I posted, the response he made at the RfC he says, "I don't edit those articles and I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are (well, apart from Tom Cruise obviously)." I bolded "and" because when he says "I don't edit those articles" he clearly means the ones that are in the scope of the case that RA requested on "cults," and clearly that means Scientology. I'd be happy if your reading was correct but I have a very hard time seeing it that way.Griswaldo (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what Prioryman meant. A misunderstanding seems most likely. You ought to discuss it with him. If there was a misunderstanding he should have set it straight when he became aware. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman. As Prioryman has engaged the issue at the evidence talk page this is already underfoot.Griswaldo (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am watching the discussion but not commenting. My view is that Prioryman needs to do a better job of ensuring that his statements don't mislead other people. Truth isn't a yes/no question. There are varying degrees of quality as to whether somebody is providing a full and accurate statement of the facts. Prioryman's "grade" isn't an A or B. Being technically accurate, but leaving the other party with a misimpression is not good work. Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You were mentioned ...

Here. If you unaware of the conversation it might interest you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments in that discussion. The discussion (and possibly Prioryman's experiment) seem based on layman's assumptions, so any insight you can provide is appreciated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I think that the introduction of links in nav templates is unlikely to have much impact. This is very difficult to test in a controlled experiment on Wikipedia. What we know is that Google can identify chunks of code that are repeated from page to page and identify navigation. Google could treat navigation links differently from in body text links. A consensus exists that adding links to the footer of a website or a blogroll, for example, on every page won't count more or much more than a single link. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions to the parties

I believe this section is reserved for questions to the parties; you may wish to move the questions you have for Cla68 to the talk page. –xeno^talk 15:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ach! Wrong case! Sorry about that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries =) –xeno^talk 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions to Cla68 in Jehochman

Hi Jehochman. Please note that I removed the last sentence of your post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs#Questions to Cla68 from Jehochman, because thanking 'in advance' for "prompt and concise answers" is presumptuous, and unlikely to effect the intended result. It is refreshing to see that editors are posting on arbitration pages in a professional way, but I anticipate that an editor who was in a heightened state of annoyance (of whom there are very many in arbitration) would react negatively to a windup comment of that nature. If you want to add an alternative that is suitable, like a simple "Thanks", or rephrase the initial comment so that it is a clear request to answer promptly and concisely, then that would be acceptable. Regards, AGK [•] 12:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

AGK, my comment was really polite in comparison to what I really think about Cla68. I'd like a little balanced support from the clerks. He's talking trash about me without any evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not realise that you found his evidence so objectionable. I am still deeply irked at your earlier comment, but I will look at his comments presently, and remove anything that is unreasonable. AGK [•] 13:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't. I am sorry to have offended you (I was irked), but I think you should be fully unirked before you do anything more here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your indef block of User:Mindbunny on 8 June

I raised some questions about this today on the User's Talk page. As a matter of courtesy I thought I should let you know. DeCausa (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. The block was reviewed three times and upheld, so I am not going to entertain further discussions of it. He only gets so many chances to object to the block. At this point if bunny wants to be unblocked he needs to state what good things he will do, and acknowledge that returning to the prior behaviors that resulted in the block will be grounds for re-blocking. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence removed

I have removed the evidence. In the future, please be careful about undertaking any actions which might disrupt the dispute resolution process that any editors are engaged in. The process is painful enough already as is. Cla68 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If my clumsy actions (per Tryptofish) made things harder for you, that was bad. Our purpose is to help people resolve disputes. I hope we can be friends in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

More "machine gun tagging"

I have made reference to your term for a new and related image tagging issue being discussed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it sound like 'rag-tag-tag-tag'? – SJ + 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikicite

You may be interested in the developing discussion on m:wikicite. – SJ + 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jehochman. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.
Message added 11:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Aaron Wall for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Wall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Wall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Jehochman ^Talk 05:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Tim Cook

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Tim Cook. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. For more information on removing talk page content, please refer to WP:VANDTYPES, WP:ALLARGUMENTS and WP:BLPTALK. --Sebcartwright (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrative action to enforce WP:BLP is not vandalism. Please don't template me as this is purely disruptive templating. Further BLP violations may result in blocks. Jehochman ^Talk 23:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Restoring the content was not a BLP violation as the original removal did not conform to WP:BLPTALK. Editors are encouraged to seek comment on adding questionable content to a BLP, and deleting comments from before the BLPN was posted removes the opinions of those editors who had already spoken from the discussion. Consensus on content appropriateness cannot be reached if discussion is cut-off. To review WP:BLPTALK:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion. (Emphasis added.)

The material removed from the talk page was clearly (1) related to making content choices, (2) contained only as much information necessary to reach an informed consensus, and (3) had not already been discussed on the talk page. (Discussion of the content on BLPN took place only after the content was originally added to the talk page; nevertheless, no attempt to refer to this ongoing dialogue was made either.) --Sebcartwright (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. Can you tell me if you have any other accounts? It is rather strange for an account with an edit count as low as yours to know so much about wikilaw and to be so insistent. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I only ever log-in to Wikipedia in order to work on protected pages, which makes it look like I edit rarely and only in highly controversial articles. --Sebcartwright (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Let's keep the discussion together at WP:BLPN. It may take a while, but once there is a consensus the direction editing should go will become clear. Until then we are going to keep out any dubious or potentially privacy-infringing statements. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

Let me restart this discussion here. Much of the material Cla68 added, as of the last time I'd looked, dated from 2006, some from before BLP was even adopted as a policy. What do you think is the (current) dispute?   Will Beback  talk  07:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom is quite happy to use antique material when it suits them to get the verdict they were looking for William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I posted here to get Jehochman's view.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should focus on recent stuff, though older stuff might demonstrate a pattern. WP:V and WP:UNDUE existed long before BLP. Can you respond here to the allegations in brief outline form. Say what's outdated, what's legit, what's false. Jehochman ^Talk 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to respond to Cla68's scattershot allegations. I do not beat my wife, nor am I responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. Again, what do you think is the dispute?   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

He removed the page. Maybe it will be clarified later. I have to put this on hold for now. Jehochman ^Talk 10:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought there was an active dispute that you knew about. Cla68 has been threatening an RfC for nearly a year now. He just uses it as weapon rather than a serious effort to resolve any actual disputes.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, he blanked it. It would be reasonable to ask him to put it up for deletion if it is dead rather than leaving the history lying around William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction requested

A correction for you re [5] - at the time that I was topic-banned from climate change I was not an admin. That is the only topic-ban I've ever received in my career as an editor. Please correct your statement. Prioryman (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

It does not appear that you were ever informed that Cantaloupe2 opened a thread regarding you at ANI. Here's the link. either way (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. It seems like the discussion is winding down already. Hopefully Cantaloup2 gets a clearer picture of how things work. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Need advice on editing multiple pages at once

Greetings, Jehochman. Can you point me to advice about editing multiple pages at once? The contribution I'm trying to make is to clean up ambiguity around four articles:

1. Inbound marketing in the older sense of product management
2. Inbound marketing in the newer sense of permission marketing
3. Outbound marketing in the older sense of product marketing
4. Outbound marketing in the (pejorative) sense of interruption marketing

The end goal I propose is four articles titled product management, permission marketing, product marketing, and interruption marketing plus two disambiguation pages titled inbound marketing (disambiguation), and out bound marketing (disambiguation). Thoughts? Do-able? Worth doing? I'm watching! Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be bold and make your edits. You may want to post your logic on one of the article talk pages and link to it from the other talk pages in order to have a centralized discussion. If anybody objects to your edits, ask them to explain the specifics of their objections and then discuss their concerns until you reach agreement or deadlock. If you get to deadlock, come back and ask me for help, or use the normal processes such as WP:3O or WP:RFC to generate a consensus. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Thanks! I've been WP:BOLD. I'll watch all the pages to see what happens next. Woz2 (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster

I rarely disagree with you, but none of this makes any sense. You have an obnoxious troll who is socking and taunting...he/she was obnoxious as WebHamster and again with TPO account...behavior is behavior...we're going to be right back where we started sooner or later.--MONGO 03:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's simply a matter of not fighting with the people who want to give the editor another chance. Easy enough to let them try. Either he behaves, or he gets blocked again. I believe that if there isn't a community ban now, there definitely would be if there is a next time. Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a sensible position. If he were unblocked, a fart in the wrong direction would lead to a block and a ban. Who could be on a shorter leash than TPO/WH? (CoM maybe, if he comes back.) Drmies (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Who could be on a shorter leash"? Drmies, I would have thought that you would have been familiar with the ouvre of Madonna and the videos of George Michael.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Link? Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lengthy Statement

I didn't realize that it was an instruction. It seemed more like advice so as not to become ineffective. I've tried to make it as succinct as possible to explain what it needs to. I've seen other such lengthy pieces at ArbCom but it's all new ground for me. What would you advise? Should I post it on my talk page and place a link to it where it is now? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Too many noticeboards?

See Wikipedia:Noticeboard proliferation noticeboard. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. It's about time someone does something about this! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what to do, but I started a blank page. Feel free to scribble upon it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to make it an essay or a faux noticeboard? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with faux. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

1 user likes this. :) AGK [•] 20:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Self service

Hi Jehochman. I'd ask you don't ever post on my talk page again unless it is specifically to raise a complaint due to an admin action of mine that you have an issue with. If it's related to anything else use talk pages of articles, meta discussion etc. . You sir, in my opinion, use Wikipedia to simply further your own business. I don't like you, I think you're a nasty piece of work frankly, and I certainly don't want to lower myself by interacting with you. Given that, I also consider myself barred from your user talk as well - not that it's much of a loss. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to post here any time you like. And no, I don't use Wikipedia for self-promotion. It is a hobby. My business would be better off if I didn't spend time here, and instead focused on work. Whoever you've been chatting with about me has fed you a bunch of nonsense, and you apparently have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Your post above and recent posts at WP:RFAR are a disgrace to admin corps, and I suggest that you reconsider what you are doing here. Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Pedro is an admin? Weird. But I suppose it could explain why he's got a practically clean block log, while users like Malleus and Giano can't sneeze without being blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes. I had to check the RFA archives to be sure. Funny thing is I have never said or done anything to Pedro to warrant such malice. He seems to be bearing somebody else's grudge. Jehochman ^Talk 10:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure of RfC

Hi Jehochman. I agree with your point of view on Badger Drink, I do not think he should be indeffed either and I have said as much. However, I do not think that it is appropriate for the RfC to be closed whilst discussion is ongoing at ANI. Badger Drink has stated quite clearly that he does not wish to participate, so nothing has changed now that he can't. What's more, both Bwilkins and I have commented at WP:AN suggesting that it should not be closed. Would you mind undoing that action, at least until some sort of consensus has emerged at the threads? Worm^TT · (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to point you to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, which gives 3 situations where an RfC/U should be closed and I don't see that this fits any. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is bad form to conduct an RFC when the subject can't comment. In arbitration a user is always unblocked so they can participate. The operative word is "can". They of course may choose not to. If BD is unblocked, the RFC can be resumed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

BD has refused declined to comment at his RfC/U, and there's no are reasons to assume he would now. Instead, he (and others) now attack those who participated in good faith through other channels. I don't concur with everything Jehochman has done on this, but I certainly concur with the closure as having been carried out according to policy as resolved through another process: blocking - which has its own due process for appeals thus rendering the RfC moot. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Irony

Disappointing to see Scott M removing criticism of himself again. Ironic to see the issuer of the Badger Drink civility block using "dick" in an edit summary removing criticism of his actions. I've been back about a day and already see poor admin behaviour (not yours)... this place can be so discouraging. EdChem (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The whole affair stinks of a "disrespecting your betters" punishment. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's ironic isn't it? I totally agree with Scott's removal of that sick and disgusting fake barnstar, and if I hadn't been involved I would have done it myself - it's the epitome of nastiness that will drive truly industrious editors away from Wikipedia. That said, I'm letting you know also that I consider the comment you left at User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner#Baiting to be just further baiting and unjustified admonishment of someone whose performance as an editor you've not cared to gauge against what Badger Drink has offered the project. As far as the blocks of BD are concerned, if I had stumbled on his unblock request with no previous knowledge of the affair, from a totally neutral standpoint I would possibly have blocked him indefinitely for gross incivility, blanked and revdel'd the template, notified the arbs and oversighters of my action and hoped there would be a key that could be thrown away. It's the most despicable string of abuse from a so called 'regular' editor I've seen in all my time and edits edits here. Others who have expressed righteous indignation against the block clearly appear to support the notion that incivility is a normal and accepted behaviour to be practiced with impunity - and with still more irony appear to be supported in that belief by some admins. All very discouraging indeed. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung,

You misread what we have written. I have not seen anybody excuse incivility. In fact, most of us have signed "outside views" noting a problem with occasional incivility from BD, who growls with style when he comes across plagiarism or purple prose.

Let us hope that the barnstar of decapitation may be retired! :)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard

I am seriously concerned that Sven Manguard is archiving sections prematurely, and massively overstepping his authority. He had earlier determined that your request for a checkuser was unfounded (I diasgree), and then determined that the section regarding Scotty Mac's hypocritical incivility would not result in any admin action. He is not an admin. I further note that he is obviously a returned user of some sort (cf. first edit, then immediately to the automated template adding).

What do you think I should do? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing yet. Let's see if friendly chat can help. Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. I still recommend walking away from this situation so that everybody has a chance to de-stress. Jehochman ^Talk 06:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand now :o)

Having spoken to Worm and Chzz (and read Chzz's page) I understand that the glitch was just an oversight on your part. Don't fret about it; we're all only human, and it's all too easy to miss something in a wall of text. I didn't even notice the question for a while after it had been asked, as it was hiding in a wall of text which I'd read before it had been added.

I like the idea that any call / concern about sockiness should have a separate subsection - it would completely remove any further occurrence of this misunderstanding. I forgive you unreservedly (for being human!) and you're welcome to visit my talk page whenever you like, so long as you don't alarm my possibly-rather-mixed assortment of "natives", lol! Cheers, Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Something to make you laugh

The Notorious Prehistoric Zombie Elk, and the ArbCom secretballet ... images which will never leave my mind :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI closure

Your premature closure of an ongoing discussion, was, in my opinion (Personal attack removed); I think an interaction ban is needed and there was some consensus building towards that. So a self-reversion would be appreciated. But hey, I'm willing to work with you here: Can a binding interaction ban come out of an RFC/U? I've just reviewed the RFC/U guidelines and I think that's not a possible outcome. If I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to go that route. If not, and the consensus is the ANI discussion has ended, what is the next step in getting a ban? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This is way too premature. Monday evening at least. Some people won't touch Wikipedia on Saturday or Sunday. Alatari (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Give me a minute to look at that. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... it was a understandable reaction to coming across a way too long wall of text (yea, I'm guilty for part of that -- fucked up in trying to introduce the "meta" simple civility principle issue prematurely). Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff, I know. Gerardw (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And what about us dormice? I hate combine harvesters ... :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Last Chance proposal was at +2 Support after only being suggested 13 hours ago and being through many people sleep cycle. I would say it had a chance of consensus. Alatari (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I will unarchive that section. The existing thread is too convoluted to serve. Please add a concise summary of the facts so that the subsection can stand alone. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It was confusing as things disappeared and finally reappeared. So does the Last Chance need a new summary now? Alatari (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend adding a summary if you want newly arriving editors to stop and comment. I know that I am often discouraged from joining a conversation when it is not easy to gather the relevant facts. Please make clear that the summary is added after some of the comments that are already there. I am not sure the best way to do that, but trust you will work something out. Jehochman ^Talk 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks

Check again, Dick Whittington. We even have a category for admins willing to do self-requested blocks. I'm in it, so you can get to the category from my userpage. When I get requests — they're rare — I refer to LessHeard's draconian rules, sometimes with an addition or subtraction or two of my own, according to the individual case. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Have you seen WP:BLOCK, the section "When blocks may not be used", the subsection "Self-requested blocks"? Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, have you? Lately? Pity about the change. I liked your version. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

TimidGuy ban appeal arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Frustrated and looking for advice...

Reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/David_Meerman_Scott/archive1 ...it seems like we don't want any of that filthy user-generated content on Wikipedia. After all, we're better than that... we're a ... oh wait a minute ... user-generated content site. Ack! Godel paradox... choking... not breathing... uh...

But seriously, if the article is about someone who is active on social media, how is one supposed to avoid the shaming that comes with mentioning the subject's social media activity? Maybe Rand Fishkin was right after all... Humph... Woz2 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

When one becomes famous for self-promotion, that is unavoidable. You should not worry too much about what one reviewer thinks. Try to get outside opinions. The article should be expanded to include critical reviews, not necessarily negative, but serious. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. Woz2 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

...except

Re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Jehochman. In fact a fellow editor did intervene and did get consent and did redact the comments; for all the good it did -- the block was imposed anyway. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that's too bad. Hopefully ArbCom will say something like "No more silly civility blocks of vested contributors. When there is such a problem, which fortunately is not very often, please bring the matter to use for decision instead of having another administrator vs. administrator clusterfuck." Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I refactored because the clerk section was turning into a threaded discussion and I did not want to move Guerrlillero's comment and leave yours. Sorry if you were annoyed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed, and you could just delete any operational comment I leave like that in the future. Thank you for your help with this case. It looks like a big one. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

	Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
	Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Clarification

The way this is written, immediately following my comment [6] makes it look as though your remark is aimed at me. I'm sure that wasn't your intention! Leaky Caldron 13:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Could you clarify it please. I remove my response until you do. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan. Might be just the way I read it. The comment you made juxtaposed with mine as follows:

1. Divisive. Pandering to a self-declared elite, when only a handful of the best content contributors actually cause any issues, is unnecessary. Also, it gives Admins. further excuse to exempt themselves from their responsibilities. Contributing excellent content is a scarce talent, treating everyone here with respect is a universal obligation. Leaky Caldron 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1. This is an encyclopedia, not a social club. It's very big. If somebody irritates you, go work on something else and ignore them. Jehochman Talk 12:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Might look like you are suggesting that I should "go work on something else and ignore them", which I'm sure isn't what you had in mind. Maybe it was an ill-timed (edit conflict)! Best. Leaky Caldron 13:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which self-declared elite are you referencing? The meaning of your original statement is not clear to me. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman. I have clarified my comments on that page since the proposer also questioned my disagreement with his proposal. Feel free to reinstate you advice to me at any time - if that is what you intended. Best. Leaky Caldron 19:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the way things stand. Glad I asked for a clarification, and glad you did. Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jehochman, regarding your request here, here you are: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Hawkeye7 admonished. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh that looks bad for Hawkeye7. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 17:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Puppy

We have a new puppy, so I might not be too active until she is trained up. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Pics on Commons, please! And links! Enjoy your pup :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

IJS

ya know .. there's a lot of things that really gripe me about you ... but I think in the end ... you really are a good person. — Ched :  ?  17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW, I did not archive that discussion you looked at immediately before leaving your message. It was hatted by an ArbCom clerk, and I changed the hat to an archive box so that at least people could see what was being said. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think you're probably a good egg at heart, too ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		A well deserved barnstar for the skilled and appropriate way you intervened on the recent Burford Methodist Church dustup. An excellent examplar of what administrator behavior can, and should be! Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, though I hope this isn't premature. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility stuff

Hi there, with reference to the ArbCom thing, I have the feeling that you and I are actually working from very much the same fundamental principles, with only very minor differences in paradigm. Is this your perception? I hope it is - you make what I consider to be some extremely good points, but feel I may possibly be coming across as dramatically opposed to them, which is not my intent at all. Just adding to clarify: if you and I were to agree to "meet each other half way", I think we'd find we were within peanut-throwing distance of each other a long time before we hit the same spot - I think we're walking along lines which are only slightly diverging / converging from parallel. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we are mostly in agreement. We disagree on a few small things, but that doesn't bother me, and I hope it doesn't bother you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all! Mild disagreement is the mother of progress! If we all agreed, none of us would ever move forward – we'd sit in smug satisfaction patting each other on the back, nodding sagely at each other, and missing a thousand opportunities to improve things. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action

Hi, you left some comments at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action under the section regarding actions being US only. Not long after you left your comments, the section was modified and more options added [7] which is more or less how things remain. I'm just writing to let you know, in case you're not aware of this and want to change you response in light of it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Jehochman,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tools WPCITE

Hi, I noticed that the tool WPCITE was created by you from this page: Wikipedia:Tools/Browser_tools/Mozilla_Firefox. The app appears to currently be blocked from the mozilla link. Is there any update on this or should it be removed from the list? cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that up. The link was very old. I've updated it to point to the current page Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

That was a good idea to have a place to start with input. Thank you for doing that! Petersontinam (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Feel free to rename the page if you think of something better. Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Embarrassed to say I don't know how to rename the page. I was thinking it could say .../Online Piracy Policy Input, or something more specific about input to make online piracy policy actually work instead of shredding everything we know. So, I need someone like you, please, to put all the jumble I just said into two or three intelligent words...please? Petersontinam (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, well the page name is not too essential. It can be improved later. To change a page name, there's a little triangle to the right of the star in the menu. You'd click that and select "Move". Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Petersontinam (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I made a mistake and capitalized every word...afraid to change again because it will cause another redirect. What should I do, please? Petersontinam (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for cleaning up my mistake. Petersontinam (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on FAC for Brian Halligan?

Hi Jehochman, I was wondering if you might think my BLP FAC of Brian Halligan (HubSpot CEO) worthy of support? Thanks in advance for your consideration! Woz2 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Woz2. I probably shouldn't touch this article for a few reasons. (1) Hubspot software isn't my favorite. It offers value for people with very little SEO knowledge, but among experts it has no following. (2) Hubspot is located in New England, and serves the same market I do. It would be best for me not to get too close to editing the bio of somebody when that editing could be perceived as pushing my own point of view or furthering my own economic interests. Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I understand. Good points. The FAC failed BTW. Oh! And Apple built a good business on "computers for non-experts" so maybe HubSpot's niche is "SEO for non-experts"? Woz2 (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Accessing Wikipedia tomorrow

You mentioned a need for the site tomorrow. Torrent Freak wrote that all you have to do is disable javascript in your browser. I haven't confirmed this yet, but it may be useful information to you. Incidentally, if true, it also means there could be an unpatrolled band of vandals that bring havoc to the site while no one is watching. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the news! Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't let the crappy stuff get you down...I think people are frayed and tired tonight. Everyone needs a nap! Good luck tomorrow and best wishes. Petersontinam (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 23:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA Initiative/Ideas nominated for deletion

See also: Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas

Please see page..Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Gianolibrad'oro.gif

I'm not replying to your last comment on User talk:GiacomoReturned because he left this comment on my page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARonhjones&action=historysubmit&diff=475453244&oldid=475452524) and I'm not reverting it, because I'm not playing his games - I did consider changing to fair use, but he had already reverted that action twice before, so what was the point, he was insisting on it being a free image because it was 3D and not 2D.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know all the intricacies, but it is a 3D image. The question is what it's a useful item, like a coffee mug with a logo, or a shirt. A book has no use other than it's copyrighted purpose. I'd feel a lot better under fair use. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When does a 2D image become a 3D one - interesting argument - what about an oil painting that has texture because the paint has been put on with a spatula?

Anyway, I agree, fair use is typical for a book cover, but he obviously (for some reason) didn't want that. If I had accepted his argument when I read it, I would have moved it to commons, but I didn't and I'm certain it would have been deleted there.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

tldr

I have attempted to address concerns you raised on Jimbo talk.[8] I hope it is sufficient? My76Strat (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Meowy

I think it would be worth giving you the heads-up, if you aren't already aware, that the block on Meowy (talk · contribs) has expired and the user has returned to editing. CT Cooper · talk 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then they are welcome to edit. Jehochman ^Talk 03:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He according to {{Gender}}. There were suspicions of socking until very recently, but none were blatant or proven. There are no edits so far since the block expiry that appear to be problematic, so I hope it stays that way. CT Cooper · talk 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Humor tag

Please undo that. I think Elen was serious. She posted in the meta-wiki RfC along the same lines as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Her question can't possibly be serious. She must have been trolling us. Please let her come to me if she has any concerns about the tag. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've notified Elen. Note that User:Maunus also thinks there's something in that RFC perhaps worth examining [9]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the tag, and would ask Jehochman to ask me in future before presuming what I am thinking - advice every man ought to follow anyway when dealing with a woman (and that *is* humour). The reason for the post was that given the continuous barrage of accusations that Arbcom holds trials in secret, exonerates its friends, and sweeps everything under the carpet, I wanted to give a space to any third party who might ask "yes, but is there something in this." I don't think there is - I don't think Gwen Gale is a worse admin than anyone else - we all make errors of judgement, and do things in good faith that don't work out so well. Mbz1's life has been derailed by the way she reacted to a block on editing a website, not the block itself, let's be clear on this. But equally, there never was an RfC, there never was a massive Arbcom investigation. Everyone Mbz1 mailed it to looked at it and said "can't see it myself" and left it at that, often I suspect without emailing their response back to Mbz1. I just wondered if that was enough for the community. Evidently it was. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Lol! Seriously though, I thought ArbCom had recently looked into this matter. Why else would you ask if there was anything to look into at unless it was some sort of humor or sarcasm? Why doesn't ArbCom take a look and them make a formal statement about whatever it finds, instead of informally dismissing, or failing to respond to Mbz1? A banned user they should get a clear answer, not a disrespectful non-response. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get at. Yes, we did all look at it - I'd seem several iterations of it by this point, and so had a couple of others. Mbz1 posted the response she got from Arbcom at meta, and it basically just tells her to disengage. I didn't think then, and still don't think now, that a point by point refutation would have made any difference, even if it was delivered by the Archangel Michael. I think Mbz1 would just have added Gwen's ability to influence the heavenly host to her list of complaints. But I was wondering if a formal point by point answer had become necessary, and if the community wanted to see it. Perhaps I could have phrased it better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I think a formal point by point answer might actually help; I suspect most editors aren't quite so likely to stick their necks out as I sometimes am, but when I read through that whole lot, I have to say I was left with what the UK Appeal Courts would call "lurking doubt". I wouldn't be at all surprised if others were left with lurking doubts, too; so a point-by-point rebuttal may very well clear some air which the Arbs etc. may not even be aware might need to be cleared. Wihtin reason, anything which increases the community's trust in the Arbs has to be a good thing. (I think!) Pesky (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Youreallycan/Off2riorob block log

15 blocks and counting. How much longer is this going to continue? Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly. Has there ever been an RFC? Their combativeness if poisonous to the wiki. With a relatively small adjustment that energy would manifest as passion for good work. Jehochman ^Talk 12:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thread is "Request for block review". Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 03:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

HI there user:Jehochman. As you may have noticed, my broadband connection is giving trouble, and I did not intend failing to notify you of the thread. *I am not (and now never will be) an admin.* So, with the block issued by you, there needs to be a review, and you can hardly fail to know that it would go to ANI, you do a lot of work there. We already crossed paths, communication-wise at the IP's talk page, and I have had my say. You are having your say. Consensus will prevail, nicht war? 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I know is that this edit and its follow-up[10] were not advisable at all, and could certainly be construed as low-level harassment based on the fact that 90.179.235.249 pretty much had to have followed Jehochman there. That said, I think Jehochman could have passed this on to another admin, and thus avoided any sort of accusations of involvement in the first place. I don't see a long-term history of disruption in their edits, and I can understand why they are upset. I would not react in quite the same way, but that is just me. They should still certainly be listened to in good faith. Doc talk 06:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing the Holy Sentence

I'm afraid that nobody is permitted to edit the Holy Sentence. Ever. There shall always be No Consensus for any changes, and if a consensus appears to be forming, a RFC will commence. If consensus at the RFC forms to change the Holy Sentence, then the RFC will be re-advertised at ever-expanding venues using increasingly hysterical language until the correct state of No Consensus for changes is achieved. You can change anything else at WP:V and nobody will bat an eyelid, but the Holy Sentence is eternally sacrosanct and inviolable.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, we can change it. It just requires more effort, and repeatedly asking anybody who stonewalls to give specific objections. "No consensus" and then reverting is disruptive stonewalling. Jehochman ^Talk 23:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good luck with that strategy. Are you actually hinting at blocking editors as "disruptive" for reverting edits like this? I would seriously re-think that one. Doc talk 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I say anything about blocking? ArbCom has repeatedly stated that editors may be sanctioned for behavior that interferes with the formation of consensus. I do not think the problems here have risen to that level yet, except perhaps for a few personal attacks here and there. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool - just checkin'! I would just also note that "disruptive stonewalling" does not mean keeping the current version until a new consensus for a change is agreed to by everyone. As I have pointed out to S Marshall a few times, we are trapped in the "Seek a compromise" section of this flowchart, and we are trying to get to the last step, the "New consensus". Cheers :> Doc talk 23:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Doc, the one compromise you offered, I agreed to. The compromise Blueboar offered, I agreed to. What we have on that page is a problem with editors who will accept any compromise at all, provided it keeps all elements of the Holy Sentence firmly ensconced in the lede, with both "The threshold for inclusion" (singular, one threshold) and "verifiability, not truth" (which must be in bold, and must be followed by its emdash and its redundant tautology that's redundant) exactly in place.

  Honestly, Jehochman, I've tried "repeatedly asking anybody who stonewalls" until I'm cobalt blue in the face. I've been doing it since November 2010. I'm afraid I think the problem there is a great deal more deep-seated than you yet realise.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was disappointed that the one I offered was shot down so quickly, as I thought it would satisfy both sides. Wishful thinking. Blueboar's proposal I disagreed with, but was absolutely sure would pass. When the three admins deemed there was no consensus for the change, I took it at face value. I didn't join the party on the talk page until this, another suggestion I was disappointed to see shot down. In the thread just above the one where I first joined in the fun, we see a poll that is overwhelmingly against removing the Holy Sentence. Outright VNT removal, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be much of an option. Wherever we all go from here, we should have learned by now that "big BRD" changes have really not worked. So we have to find a new compromise. I don't know any other fair way to do it. Do either of you? Doc talk 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was part of the group working / discussing for months and months how to get that troublesome triad out of the lede; it was a long, hard slog to get a consensus among all those who'd shown some interest, over all those months, but we did it. And then came the infamous RfC, which looked to be going just fine. As expected, some opposition, but not a lot of hysteria. Then, at the eleventh hour, a whole new slant was put on it ... and all hell slowly broke loose. I think one of the worst problems we faced was trying to get across to people the idea that the policy wasn't being changed, and the Holy Sentence wasn't being removed altogether. It was just going to be moved further down the page, and a bit of explanation on what it actually means inserted. [Onoes! Gasp! Shock! Horror!] And, even then, we seemed to have what appeared to be a pretty good consensus to go ahead (yes, even counting the !votes of the people who'd apparently misunderstood). And then nobody could agree on whether there was consensus or not. Jehochman, you maybe have no idea just how incredibly disheartening that was, for those of us who wanted to improve the damned thing so that people couldn't get away with arguing "It doesn't really matter that it's not true, because it's verifiable." On that policy, for the time being, I've given up trying. Pesky (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is at least one reason that the Holy Sentence cannot be changed: certain people do not understand that it means what it says (that verifiable untruths are allowed). Thus, no alternative text can be agreed upon. To get past this impasse, there is only one possible course of action which will work: first form a consensus on what VnT should/does mean, and then and only then seek alternate text. Seeking alternate text prior to agreement on what the HS means will never work. BTW, most of the proposals do change the policy, and it's no wonder they didn't get consensus. B^e——C_ritical 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The main problem is that "truth" can mean facts according to reality, or it can mean fidelity to axiomatic beliefs. If "truth" is used in the second sense, I agree wholeheartedly that Wikipedia is not about what editors believe based on faith. If used in the first sense, VNT is just plain stupid. It is more important to be accurate than to rigidly adhere to verifiability. If somebody finds some incorrect nonsense in a source, they cannot robotically insert it into Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 07:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is tons of untrue stuff that the majority of the RS say: witness the changes in scientific consensus over the years, as well as other scholarship. Thus, we do repeat verifiable untruths. In a case like you mention, we should modify material we believe to be untrue only based on other RS and WEIGHT. Actually I'm guessing we agree on this. B^e——C_ritical 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Why is it not obvious? It is obvious that "truth" can mean facts according to reality, or it can mean fidelity to axiomatic beliefs. And thus this "Holy Phrase" is very confusing to those editors who can actually understand written English. Such a small minority can not prevail, apparently. NewbyG ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of which bow to verifiability. The VnT phrase is correct, just difficult and we don't all agree on what it should mean. B^e——C_ritical 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't we tweak the wording to make it crystal clear? If we can agree on the meaning, then wordsmithing is relatively easy. I agree that the threshold is verifiability, not personal belief == verifiability, not truth. However, if we use that wording, we need to explain what we mean by truth, since the word is potentially confusing. Jehochman ^Talk 07:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, I tried that with the sentence "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors" [11] It didn't gain any traction partly because Blueboar said it was even harder to understand, and partly because people don't agree. B^e——C_ritical 07:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Jehochman, this discussion thread has expanded beyond my original intentions in starting it and I now think it could usefully be continued elsewhere. May we copy and/or move this thread to somewhere appropriate such as Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability?—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, dear heart, how refreshing to see such optimism in the face of adversity! :D [Friendly banter, not nasty snarcasm, btw...] "Then why don't we tweak the wording to make it crystal clear? If we can agree on the meaning, then wordsmithing is relatively easy." We tried, we really tried, we tried so hard ... if you have the energy, insight, guts, determination and stamina to outlast everyone else, then please, please go fix it for us! (>**)> Hugz, and best wishes. And have a beer! Pesky (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

meta

Hi Jehochman. I wasn't suggesting you (or anyone else) was attempting to violate anyone's privacy at all. It looks like several folks have a "meat-puppet", and/or "tag-teaming" view of the situation; but that's a far cry from SPI in my view. I'm not inclined to get into the current wp:v dust-up, but I hope it can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction - it's LONG been a tough room there.

What caught my eye was the link to meta policy, rather than local en.wp policy. And it's not the first time I've seen some meta stuff leaking over to our site lately. I'm not really sure what it's all about, but I've never been active on meta either. Is there some reason that a meta policy would supersede our local policies? I admit that I was away for a bit a while back, and perhaps missed something. Either way - cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  18:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta has the best documentation of what Checkuser is and how It works! That policy is actually the official policy all Checkusers must follow per WMF. Our local policy is set by tradition and may be applied on top of what's written at meta. Checkuser is sort of different from many other things in that WMF has a binding privacy policy all Checkusers must follow. Our local rules are a bit tighter especially with regard to the anti fishing provision. Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply sir. I wasn't aware of those things; but I was never real interested in "sock" issues to begin with. I usually just dealt with things on an account by account basis. Peace. — Ched :  ?  20:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, another wayward editor here...

...wondering what you think about this editor's responses here. Writegeist (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am temporarily busy. Collect is not easy to get along with. Either avoid them, or resort to formal dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with incivility

I'm not sure how to handle this one. See my request for Ched's help over on his talk, too. I'm really not hapy with this situation, and particularly the refactoring of another editor's talk page and marking a situation as "resolved" when it clearly isn't so, from the other editor's point of view. I'm particularly unhappy with the rapid hiding-of-comments-in-question; it smacks of keeping them away from others' eyes, rather than de-escalating. Is there anything you can help with, here? Pesky (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Jehochman: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a concern ...

... about the way the IP editor you blocked was dealt with. You said, over on their talk page:

Do you think I memorize IP numbers? This IP showed up at another users talk page, encourage bad behavior. I looked in the IP's edit history, saw the personal attacks they had made, and decided their behavior needed to be stopped. It is not involvement to have previously commented on a user.

... but it seems to me that this editor's response to having been accused of being a logged-out named-account editor causing disruption was perfectly understandable. I note you said that you'd looked in their contributions history; but that shows they'd been editing since 2009, and I would have thought that you would therefore have understood why they were upset by the accusation, and have made allowance for it, rather than jumping straight on the block button. I'm really not happy about this situation; I;m sure a named-account editor wouldn't have been blocked without any kind of warning for the same actions, and now this long-term contributor has said that they don't plan to contribute any more. I can quite understand that. Can anything be done to undo the hurt done to this editor?

Just adding: the whole thing sprang from a false assumption / false accusation, and this editor was treated very differently from the way others who had done the exact same thing (removing the tag) were treated, only because they edit from an IP address rather than a named account. This would not have happened to a named-account editor. Pesky (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. That matter was discussed, reviewed by uninvolved administrators and resolved already (by expiration of the block). I will not invest unbounded amounts of time talking about the matter. It is counterproductive to pick scabs: reopen old disputes that are finished or should be finished. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly which part you disagree with (I'm probably just being unaccountably thick, here). I do appreciate your point on not picking scabs, on a general basis, but this editor, having contributed, on and off, since 2009, has now not made any edits at all since the last few to the SPI on 28th February. Bearing in mind that they clearly weren't a sock, and (from my own, totally uninvolved viewpoint) the accusation of racism was almost certainly a misunderstanding (after all, it is important to clarify / distinguish between the Bible and more reliable sources when it comes to Jewish history); also bearing in mind that I really don't think it is likely that a named account would have been blocked for disruption for one removal of the tag (working on evidence here: it didn't happen to any named account which had done the same thing) ... is it possible that perhaps, in a moment of whatever, you were a little heavy-handed here? I know how easy it is to be overly heavy-handed when one's first impression turns out to have been mistaken (socking, for example). I really don't want to get bitten here, but this editor was:

1. Accused of socking
2. Accused of racism
3. Dragged over to AN/I
4. Dragged over to SPI

... and has now stopped editing. Pesky (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I will not invest my time arguing about a resolved matter. Please work on some articles instead of generating edits here. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, this is not easy for me (or you, I expect)

...but I am principle-centred, and easy is much less comfortable for me than right.

A time is coming when we will each have to choose between doing what is right, and doing what is easy.

Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. (Rowling, J.K.)

Please bear with me for just a little longer. Being an HFA, I'm really not good at knowing where the borderline lies between "not beating about the bush" and "being unnecessarily brutal". I've been erring on the side of caution on the "first do no harm" premise. I have a few points which I'd really like you to consider.

• Do you recall, back in December, that Bishonen said "Jehochman is a good guy, but occasionally he doesn't… hmm… have all his oars in the water. (I will take any kind notice to discuss edits, not editors, as read, thanks; I'm pretty sure Jehochman won't take offense.)"?
• (You might want to refresh your memory of the events which very nearly caused me to quit Wikipedia altogether, as the background for Bishonen's comment).
• You may not be aware of this, but your name has actually been turned into a verb (as in "editor X has been Jehochmanned"), following on from certain recognisable characteristics in the way you occasionally do things. Sometimes you miss important and relevant stuff by not being as thorough as you might have been on the background research aspects, before diving in.
• You have an apparent tendency to think of things as being "resolved" when you personally (please forgive me!) don't appear to want to revisit them and / or consider that you may have been a bit over the top, or not quite "in touch", and regardless of any longer-term effects your actions may have caused to another editor. It's very, very hard for people just to "brush off" injustice; that means that it's only from your own point of view that a matter is "resolved", when it's far from being resolved from the point of view of the other editor. The guy has stopped editing. That doesn't equate to "resolved".

Would you consider visiting the guy's talk page and posting something along the lines of "might have been a bit heavy-handed; apologise for any undue distress caused"? It would cost you nothing, and might make such a huge difference. I'm sure you're not really the kind of person who would actually want to have left another editor so disheartened and upset that they no longer want to contribute. But I may have misjudged you on that.

I apologise if I've gone into the realms of "unnecessarily brutal", instead of "not beating about the bush"; but I'm really not happy with what happened here, taken in the context both of what happened with me in December, and also the context that "being Jehochmanned" seems to have become a recognisable thing. Would you be prepared to consider that other people have seen something in you w hich you may, personally, have missed? Pesky (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, Jehochmann has indicated he does not wish to discuss the matter further and specifically asked you 'not to generate edits' on his talk page. You're being impolite. Please refrain from further posts here on this subject. Nobody Ent 12:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I missed the importance of that request. Apologies, Jehochman. Pesky (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

oops

Fine structure constant is semi-protected.... Nobody Ent 14:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Groovy! I didn't read it that way on ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps...

...you could tone it down some? Whether or not your point of view is more correct than the opposing point of view on the matter of The Shrike, edit summaries that include calling a tag moronic and suggesting a fellow editor engage brain are, at best, not exactly collegial. As you've pointed out yourself, you've certainly been around here long enough to know this.  Frank  |  talk  20:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Frank, the editor tagged a page for speedy deletion while he knew I was working on it, using an invalid speedy criteria. He didn't come here and have a friendly word with me first. Of course I am annoyed at him. Maybe you could start over and stop lecturing me about collegiality, and start by talking to the disruptive editor who is harassing me. I do not like the self-appointed civility police; don't be one. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Frank, you are welcome to post, but I will remove any further comments you make that are pedantic or condescending. I'd also like to suggest that you at least recognize my concerns, instead of just coming here and acting as if you are Richard75's lawyer. Being neutral requires acting neutral. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reacting to your personal comments against another editor does not suggest that whatever the editor did to elicit that reaction from you in the first place was correct. The user in question could scarcely fail to get your point; I don't see that your concerns need either reinforcing or recognition from me. Nevertheless, I can explicitly and unreservedly say that I agree with you that the speedy tag was incorrect. As I see it, we differ in what an appropriate response to that is.  Frank  |  talk  16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me help you. When you see an editor who is obviously upset by something, the first thing to do is tell them that you see they are upset and ask if there is anything you can do to help. That will immediately help them calm down and defuse the situation. It is much better than coming in and telling them that they are being uncivil; I knew that, I was uncivil on purpose because I was very angry at Richard75. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't glean that there was a situation to defuse, but the question you suggest is a good one: is there some assistance I could render that might help the situation?  Frank  |  talk  17:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

See section below. Things seem to be smoothing out already. Do you know how to write an article about a fictional character? I am looking for guidance on how to satisfy notability and verifiability concerns? How much of the article can be sourced to the work itself, and how much needs to be verified by independent sources? Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have much more experience with BLPs than BFPs, but I can see if I can find anything about it.  Frank  |  talk  13:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)