| Revision as of 20:03, 22 December 2009 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →Just a heads up..: spelling of link← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:05, 22 December 2009 edit undoAlexia Death (talk | contribs)1,658 edits ←Replaced content with 'Im commiting vandalism in political protest. See my userpage.'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Im commiting vandalism in political protest. See my userpage. | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 17 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jehochman/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes | age=7|target=./Archive {{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot}} | |||
| {{mbox | |||
| | demospace = | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | text = | |||
| {{#if: | |||
| | <div style="text-align:center;">'''{{{header}}}'''</div> | |||
| }}<h1>Welcome to Jehochman's Home for Wayward Editors<h1> Feel free to speak your mind, especially if your remarks are eloquent, insightful, humorous, or sarcastic. <br/>Self-important, long-winded, or obtuse comments should be placed ] instead. | |||
| | small = | |||
| | smallimage = {{#if:| ] }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{TOCright}} | |||
| == Applause (for your new talk page designation) ... == | |||
| And hear hear. ] (]) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *: Excellent. ] (]) 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * : ROFL (Brilliant!) ] (]) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That last one is ''cruel''. XD --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * (La La La) (hmmm hmmm hmmm) I'll never tell what I'm trying not to laugh out loud at — butsomebody knows. :-) ] (]) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Taking bets == | |||
| Does anybody want to lay odds on me getting less than 25% support in the current ArbCom election? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you counting the Chinese socks I bought you? :-) ] (]) 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Including any sort of undiscovered vote stacking, but excluding any disallowed votes. The results as published and verified. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'll make the market 35%-40%. ] (]) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was thinking 35-45% ... but given secret ballots, could be 85-95% ;-) <br>Payoff via paypal? :-) ] (]) 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You'll do better than you think, but if I'm being honest, I don't think you'll be elected. If you want a post-mortem: I'd be kind of shocked if very many people put a lot of stock in what FT2 or Elonka had to say. I know I didn't. On the other hand, just the fact that someone gets dragged down into the muck is usually enough to rob them of the dignity that people subconsciously (or consciously) expect from an Arb. On the other hand, you can start working on a userbox that says: "Don't blame me - I voted for Jehochman." :P ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for that. I seem to get a lot done as as a free agent. Perhaps it is best to keep operating that way. Committees are inherently slow and indecisive. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Believe me, the day I decided that I no longer wanted to run in any kind of election on Misplaced Pages ever again was a very freeing moment. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I remember thinking previously that MastCell was pretty damn smart. Just confirmed. :-) And, yep, I want one of those userboxes. Amen. ] (]) 02:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{User:Hipocrite/dbm}} ]. ] (]) 15:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| {{od}} I look so...reasonable in that picture. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Now added to top of my talkpage (pondering more honorable placement options :-) ... and noting that I just learned about two tiny, but useful, talk page templates I was heretofore teetotally ignorant of: <nowiki>{{-}} and {{od}}</nowiki> ... Nice to wake up and learn somethin' useful at Jehochman's Home for Wayward Editors. (I was also similarly in darkness about the spelling of "teetotally," but still would much prefer my initial version: "teatotally.") Waiting eagerly for that vote count (and who knows what drama might follow that. lol) ] (]) 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{userbox|gray|white|]|'''Bored?''' <br/>Don't blame me - I voted for ]}} My version. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| :I've gotta vote for the smiling visage. I did vote for you, by the way. ] (]) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fool! You're the only one, except for Proofy. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Voting for Jehochman version. (Much nicer color coordination with my Asian theme art ... and like drama icon, too. Perfect.) Installed. ] (]) 21:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Follow-up: That userbox is the width of the top-of-talk words "User talk: Proofreader77" ... and sits perfectly above the invitation "To begin a new discussion, click here" ... with a perfect lead-in: '''Bored?''' ... Well, doggies. That works real nice, now, don't it? (smiling with delight at an unexpected post-election talk-page-beautification tweak) ] (]) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===38.6=== | |||
| I win! lol Keeping that userbox! ] (]) 05:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Mentorship == | |||
| When I read ], I noticed your comments; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you. | |||
| Please consider reviewing my edit at . In the search for a ], I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --] (]) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Identical post was delivered to several dozen editors. Noted, but I will not reply further. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Hi, Jehochman. I don't think we've ever encountered each other before, but I'd just like to thank you for your words of reason on my behalf ]. It seems typical of the process that it has been closed before the punished has a word to say in his defense. And you are right-- If I had any faith left in this sort of Wiki-government, I'd certainly be ready to up the ante incivility-wise, as, actually, seems to have been part of the intent of the block, given the combative "shoot first, ask questions later", nature of the blocking Admin and his "jury". But so be it... Best regards, and take care. ] (]) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Glad I could help. A few ANI regulars jumped on the blocking bandwagon early, but then more sensible editors noticed what was happening and weighed in. Hopefully this sorry incident won't used to brand you a "problem" editor. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Drolz == | |||
| I'm minded to consider his unblock request and reduce to 24 or 48 hours. If he doesn't learn from this, well, it will take very little volunteer resources to block him again. I should add that I'm not wild about either V. or ChrisO's role in all of this, and I'd be less sympathetic if I felt that Drolz was going off the reservation without any reason. Not in a hurry to act, am going out and won't be back for several hours.--] (]) 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Incidentally, exit polling indicates we both finished around 28th, behind a yellow dog, three banned users, and Josef Stalin. --] (]) 14:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: LOL! After ], I think you understand the benefit of negotiating an agreement for unblocking. It would be very helpful if you encouraged Drolz09 to respond to my proposed unblock conditions. An offer is on the table. He should remain blocked at least 24 hours in any event. Let him respond to the offer. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Take a look at what I posted on his talk page and let me know what you think. I can't believe ] is going to be an Arb ... rumor has it he's running for Jimbo.--] (]) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Incidentally, considering new user name:--] (]) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Jehochman, would you object to shortening the block, to avoid the impression we are getting too harsh too fast--I'd suggest perhaps a week or so? I agree with you he should not be unblocked completely. I'm prepared to do so myself, but I thought I'd ask you first. See my comment at AN/I . ''']''' (]) 18:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree to a week or even less if Drolz09 agrees to the proposed unblock conditions. If he does not agree with those conditions, then we need to enforce an interaction ban, and possibly a topic ban. For now, let's say a week, because that should be enough time to come to a final conclusion of the discussion. Thank you for asking before acting. I really appreciate your professionalism. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <s>I just became aware of Drolz's block, and feel compelled to wave a bit of a flag. I hope I'm not inflamming things or doing something improper. Ah well, here goes.<br> | |||
| I got involved in an edit war on the CRU hacking page. At the time, I got the impression that Viriditas, ChrisO, and Guettarda were striving to get me to lose my cool, to commit a 3RR violation, or otherwise clearly step across a line so that they could shut me out of the conversation. I certainly found myself getting irrational, and (later than I should have) stepped back to get some cool and perspective. After some time, I decided to refocus on trying to work with Tony Sidaway on building consensus and finding a good structure that would be productive. I also decided to write off my earlier impression of being "ganged up on." It didn't seem a productive venue, and who can tell how much of it was of my own imagination?<br> | |||
| But now I see Viriditas and ChrisO involved in a block against Drolz. Do I think Drolz was more part of the problem than part of the solution? Yes. Do I harbor a suspicion that he was baited into that position by editors and admins who know the rules and procedures better than he? I think so. But, again, I am hardly an uninvolved party. I don't know what else to do with this information, but it seems pertinent, so I'm leaving it here.</s> ] (]) 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would like to point people over to ]. Thanks. ] (]) 23:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Upon examining actual evidence, I see that my accusation against Viriditas was false, and baseless. I apologize for my egregious error. ] (]) 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : We may need to have an arbitration case to sort out all the behavioral issues surrounding this article. There's only so much we can do at ]. Your concerns are noted and I'll try to help you get them resolved. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Just to clarify, my only concern is that Drolz be treated fairly. It has been a very long time since I was last involved with WP, and I don't have any desire other than to pass on what I thought was pertinent information about Drolz's case. ] (]) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I could be a bit biased in this, but having known Chris Owen for many years I don't think it's conceivable that he'd gang up on anybody. Chris himself has been subject to his own fair share of attacks, and of course he does notice those attacks and this will tend to form his opinion of a user such as Drolz09. | |||
| Early this morning Viriditas and Drolz09 came to my user talk page (Drolz09 first) and each gave a complaint against the other about (if I understand it correctly) some squabble they were having on other people's user talk pages. I urged them to both knock it off and concentrate on content but meanwhile I think Viriditas had gone to ] and the rest you know. I'm slightly more sympathetic to Viriditas who does seem to have a clue about the problem posed on the talk page by the incessant drip-drip of accusations of bad faith. I still see that as the main problem and I think the way Marknau has worked to build confidence is exemplary--I salute his patience. | |||
| Marknau isn't the only person who lost his cool prior to the latest bout of protection. I've been told (and have no reason to doubt) that prior to asking for the page to be protected I reverted four times in three hours. That won't happen again, I'm opposed to edit warring and will live up to my principles. This set a bad example to some of the less experienced editors. Mea maxima culpa. --] 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm a bit surprised this article has remained relatively calm thus far. GW hasn't been to arbitration since 2005, has it? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: 2005? I'm searching the arbitration archives as we speak, and it seems you're right. Given the contentiousness of the dispute in America, which hosts Misplaced Pages and where many English speakers live, that is extraordinary. --] 20:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that is easily explicable, in that the articles have been kept under a tighter rein than most controversial subjects. Historically, off-topic posts or argumentation about the reality of anthropogenic climate change have been speedily excised from talk pages, agenda accounts have been rapidly blocked, and there was even a more-or-less-dedicated patrolling checkuser in Raul654 who was very proactive in looking for sockpuppetry. Now, whether you consider this an "exemplary model of community-based oversight on a controversial topic" or an "unaccoutable pro-AGW police state where all dissent is stifled a la ''1984''" depends on where you're sitting, I guess. In either case, the model was increasingly seen as out of step with evolving community norms, and the lid has been taken off the box, for better or worse. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Oh dear! | |||
| :::: ''Descriptions of the greenhouse effect, especially those intended for the general public or for children, often use metaphor. In addition to the basic greenhouse metaphor, the atmosphere may be described as a "blanket", or it may be stated that infrared radiation is "trapped" or "reflected" or "re-emited" by the atmosphere, see the top-ranked google hit for for "global warming". Taken literally, these metaphors can be misleading as the underlying physical mechanisms differ from those involved in the greenhouse effect, see Bad Greenhouse.'' | |||
| :::: '' has persistently and aggressively advanced views which confuse metaphorical explanations of the greenhouse effect and greenhouses with the technical scientific phenomena underlying them. Despite determined efforts by other editors to inform him and point him to information on the subject he seems to have difficulty understanding both the use of metaphor and the scientific literature in the field, see Talk:Greenhouse effect. This is a persistent condition which seems likely to continue.'' | |||
| ::: Dammit, those are two of the funniest findings of fact I've ever seen on any Misplaced Pages arbcom decision. I have to stop now, I might be giving the notorious scibaby ideas! --] 21:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to see a case evaluate the situation, either narrowly relating to Drolz or more broadly relating to the article. The problem is that I don't think even Viriditas expected this user to be blocked, let alone indefinitely blocked. Having done that may raise the question of what else is going on at these pages, which potentially ArbCom could evaluate. Personally I see more importance in the narrower issue of whether an administrator can indefinitely block a new user who has not engaged in any sort of gross disruption, and has never been blocked, with no consensus to do so, based on the idea that the editor has generally been too combative over the last few days. I am entirely perplexed about what motivates this idea. ] (]) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Without addressing the issue of Jehochman's judgement in this case, there is very little possibility of Misplaced Pages further constratining the expectation that a responsible and respected administrator should use his powers, subject to review, while maintaining full communication with the community and responding with civility to criticism. An admin who blocks and then runs off on holiday would be another matter, it doesn't apply here. --] 22:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Your edit summary at election talk == | |||
| That was really funny! ] ] 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I wasn't sure anybody noticed! ] <sup>]</sup> 15:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Diff sorely missed. :( Don't forget about the wayward editors who don't know which way anything is. :-) ] (]) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Diff . --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 22:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Bless you, Thejadefalcon! ] (]) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Ewww == | |||
| I nearly clicked on it. I'm glad I didn't. <deadpan>I didn't know goatse links were allowed in edit summaries.</deadpan> ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :]. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you mean <nowiki>]</nowiki>. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Silage and scrumpy == | |||
| Bad silage smells like compost, which is exactly what it is. Both silage and scrumpy are fermented organic matter, although with scrumpy the broken down sugars are converted into alcohol which is exactly what farmers don't want to happen to silage (it doesn't do the cattle any good) so they use a process which inhibits yeast formation... I don't know if you was ever a farm boy, but this city boy now lives in the countryside. ] (]) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : If the scrumpy is filtered, does that make it drinkable? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm going to hurl. ] (]) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: And, for the record, will be in london in 4 days, and will thus seek out scrumpy to test. ] (]) 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I drank it once on a trip to the UK and was not impressed.--] (]) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I drank four pints at a pub in ] once, and was highly impressed. This was a "non-pasturised" local farmer's product, that was poured from a small cask set up behind the bar. One word best describes the effects: '''Psychedelic.''' Best regards, ] (]) 02:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom request == | |||
| Please see that I filed a request based on your block of Drolz09 . If you'd like an expanded case that's no problem, but I think that this block needs a closer and clearer evaluation. Regards, ] (]) 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the Supremes should deny cert on this one, save it for a case where there's something left to argue about--] (]) 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::A customer just walked into our store wearing an oversized coat, and Jehochman responded by throwing him out, calling the police and having him arrested. I think this was a tad unfair, but I'm also concerned about what this does for profits. I'm downright befuddled at the explanations, and that there is no recognition of the problem with biting the head off of a new user. If I need a guard for my night club, I'll definitely give Jehochman a call. ] (]) 03:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Why did you remove my post? == | |||
| Right ]. You removed it and didn't inform me of it in the talk page of the IP address of the computer I'm using; though I suppose the coarseness of your act is kind of answering my question.<br/>:-/<br/> (]) 00:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, it's been almost a day. I've gotten no response from you, much less a decent explainatuion, yet you have been active in the time being. Why did you remove my post , assume that I'm a troll, and not even explain your action on my talk page?<br/>The same question in the Help Desk seems to be getting a better response .<br/>If you don't respond in decent time, I'll revert your edit, and I suppose we will have an edit fight. (sigh)] (]) 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your post asked "how can I best violate policy". Per ] or ] such posts can be removed. The rule is one editor, one account, unless they are connected publicly, such as ]. Sorry for the delayed response. I did not see your post before as several others arrived below. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::First of all. Thank you for your response. However, I don't remember explicitly posting "how can I best violate policy". The question was essentially two-fold: first, would it be permissible. Second, instead of arguing for it, or doing it and then defending it, wouldn't it be easier to try non-Wikipedian alternatives. Third, if alternate accounts are linked, what does that do for, say the person who doesn't want non-Wikipedians lurking into their accounts to figure out, or strongly suspect, that someone who they might know has contributed content that he/she doesn't want known--such as the Chinese or the Iranian who wants to contribute about fhis/her neighborhood ''and'' about politics of his/her country?] (]) 15:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's a good question. If you are such a person, I'd recommend contacting a checkuser and asking permission to set up two unconnected accounts. That is normally not allowed, but if you get permission first, it would be allowed. Feel free to repost that question the way you have phrased it here if you'd like other opinions besides mine. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == A good idea == | |||
| Hi Jonathon. ] looks to me to be a very good suggestion (or directive, or whatever) that you and I have some common interest in. Up for taking a plunge? --] | <sup>]</sup> 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree. There is some text at ] regarding community sanctions, and we could also add a section to ] regarding conditional unblocks and sanctions in lieu of blocks. We need to explain what an individual administrator could do, and what the community can do (these are different). We need to explain what community processes can result in a sanction, and how consensus is determined. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yikes. Ad hoc? Seems like a euphemism for arbitrary and per whim to me. Cheerios. Happy Solstice J-Hoch (in a few days anyway). ] (]) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's an abbreviation for ''ad hochman''. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == IAR == | |||
| How exactly does constitute ignoring a rule that prevented you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages(I have to admit though, I did get a giggle out of it)? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Boosting ]! The persistent personality conflicts around Misplaced Pages are harmful. A little bit of levity can help keep people from getting wound up and attacking each other. ''It's just a website.'' ] <sup>]</sup> 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see. Fair enough. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sigh. Coren just indeffed Giano. If people would just lighten up, stupid community-destructing actions like that could be avoided. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) Kinda what I thought too. We take this place so damn seriously sometimes. (Err, I mean, like ''all'' the damn time.) Cheers, ] ] 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Bennetta Slaughter edit and COI == | |||
| Jehochman, please see this . Can you field this and respond to the user's questions? I think it might be best coming from you, as you are quite knowledgeable about this issues (both the user's acknowledged coming from an employment of ], and the ] case, etc.) Thank you for your time, ''']''' (]) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Any thoughts on this? ''']''' (]) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry for the delay. This looks like a case where the user should be kindly directed to ] and advised to follow best practices. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, ]. Perhaps you could point the user in that direction? ''']''' (]) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == What a wonderful quote == | |||
| Prominently on my talk page now. Thanks! ] (]) 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem is that civility is ''not'' objective - it's inherently and unavoidably subjective. The attempt to reduce civility to a set of objective rules is one of the roots of dysfunctional Misplaced Pages culture. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Courts have done it for years to define the boundaries of workplace harassment. We're no different. This is a workplace for volunteers. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Oh well == | |||
| You owe me a drink, I think, but we can lose it in the wash, we'll need a few. Actually, 12th was what I had predicted for me.--] (]) 22:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Other way, you own ''me'' because I polled lower. I am pleased that the cutoff will be around 60% support. It's good that ArbCom isn't going to be populate with people having only marginal support. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Makes no difference under 9th. Either way: the people have spoken, the bastards. Let's get that drink.--] (]) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *"the people have spoken, the bastards" Hear hear. :-) ] (]) 15:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is a semi-famous quote by ].--] (]) 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounded vaguely familiar .. but at 7:30 AM and not yet gone to be... everything sounds fresh and new. lol Many thanks, now I know where it comes from. ] (]) 15:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(That is by far the worst quip I have ever composed.;) ] (]) | |||
| Hard luck Chochman, and thanks for being a good sport through all the trials and tribulations of the campaign. Respects, ] 13:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for tossing your hat into the race for Arbcom. I hope that the outcome won't discourage you from contributing to the mediation of disputes. I'm pretty surprised by the outcomes, and with the secret voting set-up there's no way to see how people actually voted, so oh well. Take care. ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Thank you both. We needed more candidates, and if I was able to run, so could anybody. Next year I hope we'll have more candidates. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps you can place your name on the ballot twice so the oppose votes will split. <i>(poker face, not smiling, wiggling though)</i> ] (]) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Re effectiveness sans-office=== | |||
| I remember reading a post-election comment somewhere (by you/Jehochman) to the effect that you may be more effective as a free agent (don't remember phrasing). Do you remember the place (the diff) or simply what you said? (You may, of course, improve the phrasing here for the historical record. ;-) ] (]) 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above. | |||
| *] is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of 1 year. | |||
| *] is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors. | |||
| *The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for the imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies. The community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks. | |||
| ''For the Arbitration Committee'', | |||
| ''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Proposed trouts == | |||
| I tend to agree with you on all of these. We will probably be doing something along these lines very soon. ] '']'' 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : It was FayssalF's idea originally. When writing the justification, you may find '']'' useful, as well as ]. If you are a watcher, you have to be sure not to do anything that would require watching. This is a fine point that should be codified in policy. A corollary is that suppression must be used extremely carefully when it might appear to benefit Oversighters, or those who supervise them. In essence we have the traditional three branches of the US government: editors make policy, administrators enforce policy, and arbitrators judge disputes and interpret policy. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''editors make policy, administrators enforce policy, and arbitrators judge disputes and interpret policy.''' - oooh, I like that. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Precisely. I agree in full. See also ]. (This proposed policy will never pass, of course, but I would like the committee to impose limitations along these lines upon itself.) ] '']'' 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == The improper actions of an ex-admin (who hates humour) == | |||
| See (it's your talk page, but no need to leave big text here). | |||
| Question: What is right forum/process to restrain such an editor from damaging the conversation environment by acting as anti-humour patroller? ] (]) 09:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Set aside (subsume) | |||
| Bigger fish to fry. :-) ] (]) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Spellcraft? == | |||
| In case you were wondering what the hell I was talking about: . :-) — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I watched that movie at Halloween with my kids. :D ] <sup>]</sup> 14:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| And what about this movie? Here's a trailer. Have you watched it yet? Whatever that button is that the man with the cat pressed, I hope that the admins will never get it added to their tool kit. ] (]) 14:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : No. No. No. Wrong movie. My relationship with ArbCom is like this one: ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Just a heads up.. == | |||
| I saw you were active on ]. I posted a suggestion to the talk page about updating the wheel-warring policy. I invite discussion, etcetera there. ] (]) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:05, 22 December 2009
Im commiting vandalism in political protest. See my userpage.