Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:28, 22 January 2008

Archives
June 2006 – Mar 2007 Mar 2007 - August 6, 2007 August 7, 2007 - October 25, 2007 October 25, 2007 - the mysterious future This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

How is it going

Have a look why? thx Igor Berger (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your comments

Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice. I'll definitely follow it, if there is no objection to it. I'd also like to say sorry for declining the coaching so early after the last RFA, I ultimately ended being coached by Rlevse, but I appreciated your thought nevertheless. Best regards, Rudget. 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You made a good choice with Rlevse. I've been quite busy, and I may not be the best coach because I tend to walk into minefield-type situations. Jehochman 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Blue Tie asked, "Do you really think you are helping matters with that approach? Think about it."

You relied, "Yes."

I reply, "No, you're not. You're taking sides, and backing it up with threats to use your administrative powers against the 'other side' while ignoring the same conduct by 'your side.' That's what Blue Tie is complaining about and he has a very valid point."

Please think about how oppressive this conduct is and, just as important, how it is perceived by people who disagree with your interpretations. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that I am acting as an ordinary editor. My observation that editors who turn an article into a battleground will be blocked is perfectly accurate. I am hopeful that editors will maintain decorum, and that no blocks will be necessary. Multiple administrators are lurking at the page, and blocks will be issued, but not by me, to any editor who disrupts the project. Jehochman 16:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorhwaller

I appreciate your help in the McGill University matter, and with trying to keep Editorhwaller from further disrupting wikipedia. Thanks for your attention in the matter. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sending, he's not receiving, yet. Hopefully he will reconsider and decide to take a more collegial approach. Jehochman 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I posted this on Snowfire talk page. I wanted to make sure you saw it:

• "Let me just chime in here, as a third party, to say that Snowfire has been more than patient throughout this long drawn out affair. I should also call your attention to some rather bizarre comments made by Editorhwaller on my talk page a while ago, which would appear to put him in violation of some mixture of WP:POINT and WP:TROLL, to name but two. He claims to be part of a group of social pyschologists conducting experiments on Wikpedians, comments that call into question his sincerity and/or sanity." See. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out that diff. I very much do not believe this story about an experiment. This looks very much like trolling, but even if he is really conducting an experiment, stressing people on purpose to gather data is a completely unacceptable use of an account. Either way the account should be blocked, so I have done that. Jehochman 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your patience and help in this matter. I hope now we can all go back to working together for the good of wikipedia, and the grand experiment is over. I appreciate you checking out the evidence, and having my back. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, he's back, with a new sock puppet and still harping about Oxford, for some strange reason. See: User:Casta321. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And now there seems to be a second sock or meat. I think you may have to semi-protect the Talk pages for McGill, Snowfire and me. Thanks. I see you seem to be on top of this. Many thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard project, Waterboarding, and a meatpuppetry

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou

This entire mess just went from annoying and dumb to surreal. Read:

I really would like to see a very ride review of this via AN or ANI. Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to post this to AN or ANI please do so, otherwise I will, and I would prefer not to, as I'm a touch steamed right now. From that page:

* "# Should we weigh in on whether Misplaced Pages should keep the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture"? If so, what is our position? Khoffman 19:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)"

Given that they 'orally' decided to take up the waterboarding page, I smell major meatpuppetry and an answer in part to why this page has been a disruptive fiasco. Lawrence Cohen 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to ANI, please. This is an incident. Jehochman 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will, then I'm taking a break. Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, nice one. I was always partial to the MIT hacks. Lawrence Cohen 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yale sucks..:)

Some mutual friends Wonder if you know? Igor Berger (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I miss your home sweet home sign, "If you must troll this page, please be original." Does that mean you do not like Trolls anymore..:) Igor Berger (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

J, now you talking..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Waterboarding

Anyway, so that was unexpected. El_C 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wacky wiki wonderland! It's all good. I've resumed contact with an old college friend. Unfortunately, he's gone over to the dark side (Harvard). Jehochman 03:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Must have been abducted by Darth Vader Igor Berger (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this? Jehochman 04:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom exam cliff notes?Igor Berger (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good on ANI

FYI. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comments. As you can no doubt understand, I have been attempting to communicate in a rational, civil manner with the editor in question for more than 2 months, but he seems completely oblivious to the non-negotiable need for compliance with even such simple policies as WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE - which is extremely aggravating. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be a very accurate statement. If you step back, I will take a turn. Some users socialize quickly; others need more time. Should you run into further difficulties, just let me know and I will do my best to help. Jehochman 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy for you to have a go at gently socialising him. I believe he will make an excellent contributor to the project if we can wean him off his obsession with promoting Sealand and perceiving my frustrations with his non-compliance with policy as a personal attack. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind having a chat with our friend again? He's trying to remove the same content from Principality of Sealand yet again, because he apparently believes that the cited (first party) source says something that it "shouldn't". He doesn't yet seem to have grasped the fact that we're here to report what sources say, not to delete them when they don't happen to agree with our POV.

His changes to Empire of Atlantium also appear to be progressively introducing a level of subtle pro-Atlantium bias into that article - and I say that as the chief executive of Atlantium. --Gene_poole (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will, later tonight. Let the wrong version, if that is the case, stand for a while. Slow reverting is sometimes a good strategy. Jehochman 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unusual that Gene Poole said this at 17:53 when I changed the article back at 18:00. This would mean that he would have predicted the change from the discussion page, but it makes sense to write why you think the change should happen rather than just changing the page without a comment. I never actually said that I would change the edit back, so obviously he wants the dispute to happen. I didn't delete the sources, and since Gene Poole is so concerned about reporting what sources say, I used his website as a source for Atlantium. I think Gene Poole just wants to continue the dispute, he questions whether the convention will actually become official and he is being completely unreasonable. If he does not want to stop the dispute then he is an uncooperative editor. He spends more time arguing and continuing the dispute than editing. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason John Carter is highly involved. It's now clear that Gene Poole is more interested in the dispute than Misplaced Pages. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make accusations here. I said I would look at it tonight, and that I've reserved judgment. Jehochman 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is paying attention, I request that User:Gene Poole not make any edits concerning Empire of Atlantium in order the he may comply with conflict of interest best practices, if he is in fact an officer of that micronation. Limited edits to revert vandalism and spam are acceptable. User:Onecanadasquarebishopsgate is asked not to add or edit any micronation content without providing a reference to a reliable source. These two conditions should greatly reduce the possibility of disputes over these articles. With micronations, we must be especially careful not to engage in speculation or original research. Comments? Jehochman 08:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you suggest using restrictions - but at the moment I don't think they are needed, if the dispute resolution fails then yes, but so far it seems to be working. I will add sources even without a restriction. Gene Poole isn't just an officer, he is the emperor - so he probably knows the most about the Empire of Atlantium. Thanks for the request, I think it is useful - but it will be more effective if the dispute resolution fails. Let's see how this dispute resolution ends first. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New convention

I have written on Gene Poole's discussion page about the convention, I think this can end the dispute entirely, and stop a lot of future disputes. If you need any further information, see the Wikiproject's discussion page. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock former TOR exit nodes

Jehochman, I checked the last 5000 blocks via Special:Ipblocklist (mostly out of curiosity), and found that

• 89.37.216.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.191.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.70.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

which you blocked as Tor exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, Iamunknown 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Three non-Tor IPs unblocked. Jehochman 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Iamunknown 05:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

A. You mention free speech on your user page. B. On ANI, Profg says "you will be slammed". If true, this should be an eyeopener that WP slams people. He said " Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it". He didn't say to vandalize it. C. According to WP:CANVASS, "to block the user(s) only if they continue". I see no warning notice on his user page.

Therefore, you have improperly blocked this man. You should unblock him and follow the proper procedure. If he is a jerk, he will violate the procedure and then you can block him. Do not be a jerk just because he is a jerk.

By doing what you did, you slammed him just like he predicted. You became the bad guy and he became the victim. Do the right thing and unblock him for now. Onequestion (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has been warned before, and been blocked for disruptive behavior. He was unblocked on strict probation. The unblocking administrator, B., stated that a new block was warranted. Feel free to comment at the discussion where the entire community can see your remarks. Jehochman 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This account has one edit and it's to your talk page defending another blocked editor. A newbie who knows what ANI is? I'm indef blocking as a sockpuppet. --kingboyk (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As your reason, make sure to cite the trollish edit summary. Jehochman 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late... but I think my summary is OK anyway. Feel free to unblock/reblock if you're not happy with it. --kingboyk (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's never to late. You can always post a reasoning and diffs on the user's talk page below the block notice. That helps if the block is ever challenged. And, thanks! Jehochman 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyediting help

Your help is highly appreciated. Igor Berger (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette question mentioning, but not about you

In the interest of full disclosure, your post to the arbcom enforcement board made me wonder about backing assertions of bad behavior. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#Diffs for assertions about behavior? Anynobody 08:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you do copyedit on Andy Beard

Thank you J. Igor Berger (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, do you know why the article got deleted? Igor Berger (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of notability. Keep in mind that Matt Cutts was nominated for deletion, and Matt is much more notable than Andy Beard. These things happen. I suggest waiting a while. If new references appear, perhaps the article can be restarted at a later time. Jehochman 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I have an idea. Ask AzaToth (talk · contribs) to restore the article and say that you want a chance to work on it some more. A contested speedy deletion should be sent to WP:AFD instead, at worst, I think. That will provide at least 5 days opportunity. You could also request that the page be restored to your userspace so you can fix it up at a leisurely pace and then move it into mainspace. Jehochman 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

J, I asked User:AzaToth ti restore the article. User_talk:AzaToth#Can_you_please_restore_Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been restored but nominated AfD, I can use some help with notability Talk:Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please provide your input Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard#Andy_Beard Igor Berger (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect Request

If you've got a second, I'd like to request semi-protection for the Phil Luckett article. He's a ref who made a questionable call in the NFL playoff game today, and he's drawing heavy random IP vandalism for stuff that can't be properly sourced until after the game. I made an oficial request, but I thought I'd see if you were around to maybe cut this off early. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given it 48 hours of semi-protection. Hopefully that will be enough for everyone to cool down, and for the reliable sources to appear.Jehochman 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that should help tremendously. I appreciate it! Snowfire51 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. If you do not want to apply the remedy to AN yourself due to previous involvement (although I do not think that should be a concern in your case) but if you do not want to then you may want to post something on AN/I (if you have not already - I did not check) as WP:AE gets scant attention. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay in one venue, and somebody will deal with it. If the other editor persists, they will prove our point. Jehochman 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

div class="usermessage"

I've got new messages?(!) Ughh! :( El_C 03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

fair enough

Hi Jehochman. I don't want to fight you. We are on the same side, the Misplaced Pages side.

You show honour by not reverting comments like some admins do. For this, a star for you. (*). Let's just let the checkuser request take its course, whether it's run or not.

If I were you, I would have reworded the request much differently. I would have said all these 3 users are not improperly acting like socks of each other so no checkuser is requested between these. However, a checkuser of Profg to each of them is requested to show they are not Profg.

If you are worried about meat, none of them are voting together. Maybe they are admin who don't want to publically support Profg but are against full community ban. Or maybe someone wants to make a suggestion on the talk page but given the hostility of the subject doesn't want to be stalked or attacked.

Just some thoughts. Republic of One (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed my other RFCU comment. That's a 50% reduction. I'll leave my other one there or it will look like admin intimidation of an editor. Let's not start a fight, ok? Objection noted, you responded. I withdrew 1 of 2 comments. Republic of One (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I wasn't particularly offended, and I am glad you have understood my point. Regards, Jehochman 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with the case. Jehochman 14:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have damaged Misplaced Pages, consider this.

As one admin to another, I try to give great deference to another admin's judgement and actions. Your RFCU could have been handled much better without potential damage to WP.

The results are in. Your accusation was wrong. There was a comment that the RFCU was not a category F. I tend to agree. Furthermore, all 3 listed people were different. However, one person who makes good contributions (Congalese fufu), including current work on 2 articles to bring them to featured article status, has been outed. It is very possible that this editor will cease editing because of this. If this happens, Misplaced Pages would have been harmed because of actions that you started. All of our actions have consequences. We admins are always pointing out vandalism but our actions can have the same long term effect as the vandals if we are not careful.

I told the checkuser that I am willing to discuss privately with productive edits who have an alternate account if this can improve their behavior. You could have done this and not chase away an editor. Walton One once made a similar comment. You see, my main goal is WP improvement. Archtransit (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of violation of official Misplaced Pages policy
By your own admission ("a one minute block to note this case in their log" as noted here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RFCU#Onequestion), you have violated official Misplaced Pages policy stated in this passage . It gives me no pleasure to block another admin. However, this will be evidence that can be cited to the skeptical that WP has a cabal that protects its own. This block is done to prevent further damage to WP by preventing your edits. I encourage you to reflect on this situation and how your good intentions resulted in violation of official Misplaced Pages policy as well as probable damage to WP in terms of other's improving the encyclopedia.

Your term of blockage w ill be 12 hours, calculated as less than half of the 31 hours normally given for vandalism. Please accept this as a learning experience and not plan retaliation. Archtransit (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Two wrongs do not make a right. Request handled by: —Animum (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Original block clearly stated that blocking as to prevent damage to WP by preventing further violations of official WP policy. Despite being unblocked, Jehochman is encouraged to carefully follow WP policy in the future. Archtransit (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am taking this matter to dispute resolution. The first step, informal conversation has been initiated. We are in dispute. Jehochman 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense AT, but your block of Jehochman was crap. J was clearly trying to be lenient in a case that, but for mitigating factors (that not everyone would consider), would normally require a lengthy block. J may not have worded the block notice in the best way, but your block (without discussion of the policy you cited) was over the top. R. Baley (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. How exactly was Congolese fufu "outed"? Lawrence Cohen 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They weren't. Jehochman 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was getting from reading this all, and that bit especially made no sense. If the user quits Misplaced Pages after being caught abusing multiple accounts for whatever reason, thats hardly the fault of the CU or the person who requested it. Lawrence Cohen 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am as confused as you. I do not see how a 1 minute block is worse for them than a 2 week block, which would have been justified under the circumstances. Jehochman 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess AGF can get you blocked now. :( Lawrence Cohen 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on block of Congolese fufu

I think the problem is that you reduced the block of Congolese fufu so much that it no longer was really a block. You weren't intending to stop them editing for 1 minute, you were intending to put an entry in their block log. I can see that your intention was generosity, but I think the option you chose was one not really open to you. That said it wasn't a very serious breach of the blocking policy and some might well invoke WP:IAR to defend it. Certainly a block was not the right response if someone disagreed with your action. That said, could everyone please bear in mins that the admin who blocked Jehochman is very new to the job - and that ideally this should be treated as a learning experience rather than an opportunity to lynch someone. WjBscribe 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. One thing new admins should realize is that they can go to somebody experienced (points to the guy above) when something like this happens, rather than taking it on themselves to do a controversial block. Secretly, I've always wanted to be blocked to see what it feels like, so now I've had that experience.  :-) Jehochman 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's awesome, especially when you accidentally label yourself a sockpuppet while trying to block an IP (). :) MastCell 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That was pretty funny. R. Baley (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing severe damage to wikiprokect seton hall,you really hurt wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

barnstar in progress, probably tomorrow

A barnstar is being made. It will commend Jehochman from turning anger (threats to prolong the matter into dispute resolution) into presumed calm. These turning points are what make barnstars meaningful, not just patting friends on the back. Archtransit (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lulu Margarida

You might recall User:Lulu Margarida was blocked for a week in November for their disruptive behavior, incivility, and intimidation attempts at the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article. The block expired, but they did no more editing after that. However, today apparently Lulu has decided to return. For their first edit, they left a note on my talk page with the heading of "Hello Freak.". So far that is all they have done, but I'm mildly concerned that this is the first action they take up on deciding to return to Misplaced Pages. It doesn't seem to be a good sign that they intend to not repeat their past incivilities. I don't know if any action is warranted now, but I thought it would be good for an admin to be alerted so hopefully someone keeps an eye on him. Collectonian (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is today my day for all the LuLu and FuFu users? I'll have a look. Jehochman 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

..for being gracious and reasonable, even when blocked. If everyone was like that, the drama quotient around here would go way down. Friday (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thanks, it was nothing. Best regards, Jehochman 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Friday. I hope that if someday I find myself in the crosshairs of an exuberant new admin, I will be as calm and forgiving as you have been. Cheers. — Satori Son 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even though I disagreed with you on whether it was resolved until Archtransit actually acknowledged an error :-P 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye. There's no problem with that. Jehochman 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, way to set a good example. There's not enough of that going around. It's too bad, though - this had the makings of another constructive "test case"... :) MastCell 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if everyone was like this, arbcom being obsolete isn't a wild proposition. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI 16:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mateohoffman

Hey! Well done on finding that account. Still trying to assimilate what it all means. Have a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Comments on Mateohoffman for my thoughts so far. Will you be taking this to the proposed decision talk page? I suggest you do at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't deserve any credit at all. What does this mean? I am not sure. It may mean nothing, or it might be a clue that leads to other information. Jehochman 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I will credit B instead. Thanks for pointing that out. You still get the credit for introducing it to the evidence though. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger/Andy_Beard

Igorberger tells me he started this article on your say-so and it got CSD'd. You're the resident expert on SEO. Follow up with the fellow, please. Durova 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a case of borderline notability, so it depends how the article was constructed and whether suitable references were provided. He's watching my talk page so hopefully he will join this discussion. Jehochman 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm still new at constructing articles from scrach. So to one person it may look like lacking notability even when there is notability everywhere. Igor Berger (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See above for advice how to handle this. Jehochman 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's clueless?

User:Phoenix-wiki, I believe is not an admin, made the change. I am shocked that a non-admin would think they he or she has the right to change the title of any arbitration request. But User:Phoenix-wiki did proof right here! Do you supposed that this is the kind of behavior I've been dealing with on the Asian fetish article? Now, I ask you why the hell are personal attacks on me using external links going unpunished on wikipedia? Just look at the Asian fetish article the involved parties are having a field day with the article and I don't have a clue? Since it looks like you are an admin, I challenge you to do the right thing and punish those who obviously personally attacked me. Tkguy (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See that you are upset. Can you provide diffs that show personal attacks? See the help files if you need directions for how to gather the necessary evidence. Jehochman 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I came across too emotional. What can I say people post links to Asian forum posts on the talk page of Asian fetish and are obviously trying to make me out to be something I am not. Anyway, all the links are in my arbitration request here. I am afraid you will have to look at a lot of our edits to see the true story. Yes, sometimes I fight for things that may seem POV pushing but when somebody makes a valid point then I give up. That's not what I see from the people who personally attacked me. Once I get them to a point where they loose the debate, they just delete or attack another way. Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Tkguy (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the section of the talk:Asian fetish page that contains the personal attacks on me diff. Tkguy (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the request for arbitration will not be accepted, and the matter will be left for the community to handle. If you need advice or assistance, let me know. Sometimes patience is a great strategy. Try to create a short explanation using a few diffs that show your point. This can be more convincing than a long story with many diffs. Jehochman 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So are these personal attacks? Tkguy (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they were, but they seem to have been removed already. In this situation I think the best remedy is to have an uninvolved party delete the attacks and warn the attacker. Blocking will only make them angry and could provoke an escalation of the dispute. If it happens again, let me know. Jehochman 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

J you know WikiPedia by heart

You seem to know every caveat of WikiPedia. I am proud to learn from you. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

J, this is the second article I tried to make and failed. Some people are good at making articles others are good a keeping NPOV. Look at our friend John H. Gohde, he made a whole project. Ha, Ha, Ha...I wonder how he managed that. Will have to wait a year to ask him! Igor Berger (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should Misplaced Pages:LAME and create Andy beard, andy Beard, andy beard, andybeard, Andybeard, andyBeard,,,you get the point...etc., with five days apart will have Andy Beard live forever. But I have better things to do with my time..:) Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You deserve this!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your hard work towards the Cause! Igor Berger (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehochman 13:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem. The editor you coached for this is getting accused of COI now and his article may get deleted. Durova 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He occasionally asks me a question, as do many other users, and I answer as best I can, but I am not monitoring him. I have commented at the AfD and provided him advice on how to improve the article in his own userspace. Do you see any evidence of COI? All I see is a bunch of editors biting a newbie who appears to be a non-native English speaker. Jehochman 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Evident facts need consensus?

That page is missleading. Administrator can never block users if those users have enough resources...--Damifb (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget! (with a little extra)

Andy Beard AfD

Sorry if I seems a bit bitey towards Igor, but his comments just really struck me as having a bit of a conflict of interest, if not some ownership issues with regards to his article. Also, some of his threats have been a bit out of line, threating to go to RFC and getting other admins involved, along with his original threat to canvas other users for the AfD. I understand English isn't Igor's main language, but all of it together just comes off a bit harshly. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he needs socialization so that he can work within our community. Please ask the others to recognize that there probably isn't any COI, and that he's just an eager newbie. He doesn't understand how to create an article. We should encourage him to take advantage of the help facilities that are available. Jehochman 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

J, that is exactly what I was saying. I do not know how to make an article. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, Andy Beard came by and told us a lot about himself to make it a WP:BLP please take a look and you are welcome to write the article. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

J, I do not understand. You said we will have 5 days before the article gets deleted, but it got deleted in 2 days. Igor Berger (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Since your current proposal is limited to instances of confirmed sockpuppetry, I suggest instead you seek a change at Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Tagging to make unauthorized removal of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet templates a blockable policy violation. That would have two advantages:

• Provides more information by linking to the category of confirmed sockpuppets.
• Not stigmatize the editor in case the checkuser is wrong (it's not magic pixie dust). Templates can be removed, but block notations are permanent.

Think of what happened to Orderinchaos. We want to minimize instances of that, not increase them. If he hadn't already been a known administrator that could have been a scarlet letter. Durova 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll consider that for sure. For what it's worth, if a block is posted incorrectly, there can be an unblock. I've got a bad block on my record, as do many other folks who've been here a long time.

My concern is that sock puppetry is one thing, and blocks received by the socks are something else. Consider:

• User A: Has a few blocks
• User B: A requests a new username, and gets changed to B. The 'crat notes the former blocks in the log. (current practice)

Contrast:

• User A: clean block log, FA contributor
• User A2: sockpuppet used for several 3RR violations that were blocked 24 hours
• User A3: sockpuppet used for outing another editor, blocked for one month.

If the sock puppetry is discovered months after A2 and A3 become idle, I do not think we should prevent A from editing. I also don't think we should put the "scarlet S" on A's user page (sockpeteer template). However, I think the block histories of A2 and A3 should be visible in case A gets into future trouble. Those past blocks should be considered. The notes could be mild, "A's alternate account received a one month block".

The A to B situation is not really different from the A, A2, A3 situation. The computer scientist in me wants them to be handled the same way. This is really just a matter of practical common sense, not any sort of desire to change community standards.

I agree wholeheartedly that routine warnings should NOT be added to the block log, which is what Bishonen, Geogre, Deskana and the others were arguing against in the old threads. Jehochman 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, positive checkusers sometimes get reversed. Editors who become the subject of checkuser requests often have other problems. So the kind of editor (and sadly, administrator) who fails to read the talk page history edit notes is the same kind of person who'll skim the block log and do nothing but count the entries. A nice bright sockpuppet template is a good antidote to that, and it actually looks like a loophole in policy that sockpuppeteers who aren't banned are able to remove confirmed sockpuppet templates.

As a side note, it's perfectly possible to edit categories and record the blocks accrued on sock accounts for easy reference. That would provide more detailed information than a block log note would supply. Durova 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud... What if we edit the block log display page to add a link to the user's sockpuppet category? For most of us, that link will be red. For the puppetmasters, it will be blue. This is less obtrusive than having an ugly template on their user page, yet the information is still visible when needed, and full details are available if desired. If a user is falsely branded a puppetmaster, no problem, we just delete the category page.

Take a look at Amerique (talk · contribs). This is the puppetmaster of Academy Leader. He's made great improvements. I don't want to needlessly embarrass people, but at the same time, we need to have accountability. Jehochman 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And the category could be deleted and returned to redlink? Sounds good. I'd support you if you approached a developer about that. Durova 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a developer is not needed. Those pages are editable by a clever admin. I know one who can handle it. High Five! Shall we change the RFC proposal? Jehochman 21:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Any more need for an RFC after this? Durova 00:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The solution we've agreed upon is more elegant and better for usability. I am contacting somebody who might be able to help. Jehochman 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the advice before I put my foot in my mouth again. There is no score to settle or blocking quota that I want to fill. I think I'll go back to my previously undone tasks with the testing of the tools in a slower, controlled manner. The Fairchild Dornier 728 was an article that I was working on until recently. Archtransit (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. There is no deadline. It's a lot of fun to pass RfA, but then you need to take time to learn what's expected. A lot of what you need to know isn't written down. You might try volunteer clerking or working with another admin for a while. There are always plenty of folks willing to teach. Jehochman 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Seowiki

I am getting tired reverting his corretions and links. Igor Berger (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just hoping you can clear something up --

The entry on me at the AN/I has disappeared.

Does that forebode something worse? If not, what does it indicate?

Stone put to sky (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's usually a good thing. It was probably archived and you are apparently still able to edit. Now would be a good time to read my essay WP:XOX and then leave a few friendly words for the people who you may have disagreed with. Jehochman 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind sentiments, but i have been the repeated object of this particular person's ire as well as several of his friends', typically in the context of their crusade against one particular page. This was not a role i requested but, instead, was clearly assigned -- whether by their own unreflected prejudices or by my own inadequate capitulation, i do not know. For my part, I shall endeavor to avoid them; i can only hope that they will reciprocate. In the meantime, i would appreciate it if you would -- over the next month or two -- occasionally drop in on the State Terrorism by the United States page. I worry that it will soon be the object of much concerted editorial attention.

Sincerely -- Stone put to sky (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Funny that you answered for Ryulong. Are you following him or me? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Codyfinke is such an odd user. Why would someone do that? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Alison blocked the user, but she is highly trusted. You may ask her. Ryulong's talk page is on my watchlist and your username is quite memorable, Mrs.Easterbunny.  ;-). Jehochman 23:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want Ryulong to know that you are watching his page, you may revert this entire message. Still there but less visable. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem. I automatically watchlist every page I edit. This is pretty standard and doesn't offend anybody. This is a good reason to maintain civility and follow WP:WOTTA at all times, because third parties are viewing every conversation, and should feel welcome to join in. Jehochman 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching/Volunteers

Hi, I see your name is listed here. I've taken a look here and left comments, as well as on WP:AN. The whole process of coaching seems to be stalled. I know we've had our differences in the past, but you strike me as being an extremely capable mentor, even though I'm aware you're busy elsewhere. Now, I'm fairly new (<6 months), but I am committed to WP and have an edit record of which I'm, well, perhaps proud is not the right word, but hopefully confident: User:Rodhullandemu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I am fully aware that I've made mistakes, and am prepared to admit them; in fact in an RfAa, I'd do it up front and admit to inexperience and frustration. If you don't feel you can spare the time to help me, I will understand that fully; it would be useful, however, if you could give me at least an informal indication of where I could improve. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any differences and that wouldn't matter to me anyways. I'd be happy to help you. Jehochman 00:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's generous of you, and I appreciate it. It is important to me that I have the confidence, not only of the community at large but also of those whom I regard as gurus here; particularly that I am not especially well-known in WP, because I tend to stick to areas where conflict is not the norm; however, I do feel that in my own way, I can work to prevent the major excesses of vandalism that occur here on a daily basis. Non-admin rollback is useful to me in that regard, and it saves me the edit summary that is required by Twinkle. I use that wisely, of course, and will use the normal TW revert where appropriate. The difference is that if I were an admin, I would not have to wait for a response in WP:AIV. Ho Hum. Thanks for your support anyway, and regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfA: Thanks for your message. I am having great difficulty dealing with this at present, because it would be an awesome responsibility to take on, even if I pass the community test. I would be forever looking at my back, which I suppose is no bad thing for an admin, in that being given a mop & bucket is really no great accolade. However, if I have a mission, it's to protect and improve the encyclopedia. Knowledge is important to me, and if I can make a difference, the additional responsibility, although daunting, would be worth the effort I would be prepared to take. Thanks for your confidence. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco alliances

You said here that there's no evidence to suggest an alliance. The real situation is that evidence exists to both support and oppose the existence of the alliance, which is why I'm undecided about the affair. What is your opinion of the supporting evidence? --Matt57 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In trying to assess the validity of references cited to obscure publications in foreign languages, I have done three things: (1) Checked for online sources. (2) Asked history scholars I know for their opinions. (3) Ran Google book searches. The book searches that did turn up the references cited showed that PHG was, at best, stretching the sources to support his thesis. The scholars said the thesis was bollocks. There were no online articles to support the thesis, except for things that were repeating the Misplaced Pages article (circular referencing doesn't help!). If the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance were verifiable at this time, it would be documented somewhere online, and history scholars would have heard of it. This is not some sort of minor fact. PHG has been writing multiple long articles about it. There may be clues that such an alliance might have been considered or attempted, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish original research and novel theories, even though these might somehow be true. My feeling is that we must be especially vigilant, or as others have said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Subtle misrepresentation and wishful thinking can lead to false information. This is much worse than overt vandalism, because it can fool the unsuspecting reader. Jehochman 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats some good research you've done. Can you tell some more detail about the exchange you had with the scholars, i.e. what they said specifically about how this could not be true? Or did they just say it wasnt true? I didnt see your name on the talk pages there or maybe I missed it? You could take part there and express your opinion too, its as valid as the others who have said the title should be kept. As we saw in Mulay, PHG made an article which was not about Mulay so maybe, he's done the same thing here. However I dont know what to say about other editors who are saying the title is fine. I'll try to check the sources on both sides again. --Matt57 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My contact with the historians was essentially a quick check to see if they had heard of this or not. They hadn't. Now, it might have existed in some minor form, but this is a very obscure fact if so, probably original research at best, and here we have all these big articles as if it's some major event that's fully verified, which it isn't. Misplaced Pages is currently giving this supposed alliance vastly more weight and attention than it deserves. Perhaps there could be one article suggesting an attempt at an alliance, and we have an article about Mongol raids into Palestine which appear to have happened. Jehochman 01:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what these scholars have to say about historians who have said the alliance happened. Do you have names of these people who you contacted? We could contact real professors in real universities. Additionally as usual, I'm being bullied off away from Elonka by her friends Shell Kinney. I'm trying to solve a dispute here. I've been nuetral here in this situation. I've been doubtful of PHG as I've been of Elonka. Whats your advise? Why do her friends have to rush up to Elonka's defense like this? Do you think its ok for Elonka to reduce the article from 190K to her own version of 80K, honestly? This means a lot of sourced material was removed. Will you side with her or would you be on the right side? Surely removing sourced material like this is wrong. Now I'm not stalking or anything, I dont gain anything by doing that. I felt this dispute was going on and on, and PHG was being pushed into a corner, false claims of "consensus" was being made to the contrary so I felt I had to step in.

So in short, a very simple question: is removing sourced material correct? How can I now give a fair evaluation to what Elonka is doing when she does something like this? --Matt57 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

J, surely, you must have an opinion on whether its ok to reduce an article from 200K to 80K while sourced material is being removed? Are you going to refrain from talking against this injustice? I hope you have the courage to speak out against that which is wrong. --Matt57 16:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I may take this to arbitration. The dispute has been festering for a long time. The behavior of all parties, Elonka and PHG included, should be scrutinized. Jehochman 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, do take this to mediation. These people are not backing off from their positions, especially Elonka. Reducing a 200K article down to 80K without explaining any of her changes is simply wrong. I'm not part of this affair anymore. I was trying to see if it could be resolved but after seeing she was forcing her own version into the article and seeing other admins come to her side (WJB, Shell Kinney) was the last straw. --Matt57 16:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont name me in the mediation. I want to have nothing to do with this. --Matt57 16:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of involving you. You are free to involve yourself in whatever you like. My comments about this matter have only the simple purpose of informing you about the situation so that you can make an informed decision. Best regards, Jehochman 17:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your assistance on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen. It is most appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With pleasure. Any time. Jehochman 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have rebuilt Andy Beard

I followed your advice when building Andy Beard and did it as WP:BLP. Please take a look at it. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it a bit of time. The deletion discussion closed early because consensus to delete was near unanimous. I will look at it when I have a chance, as I want to spend time digging for sources. Jehochman 04:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I also alerted User:VirtualSteve being that he did the first deletion and he may decide to delete it again. Igor Berger (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure you should have recreated the article in mainspace so quickly. It might have been better to construct this in your userspace and then get opinions if it was ready for article space. Jehochman 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not sure how busy you are going to be and how much you will be able to help me. So, just took a chance knowing that it may get speedy deletion, but I backed up in my user space, just in case. Igor Berger (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This new version still relied too heavily on primary sources. It would need references to at least three independent publications writing articles that focus on the subject, not just mentioning him in passing. I moved this out of article space to User:Igorberger/Drafts/Andy Beard. Now you have two copies. If you want one deleted, let me know. Jehochman 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete the draft User:Igorberger/Drafts/Andy Beard. , let's use User:Igorberger/Andy Beard. Will keep looking for secondary sources. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Talk:Andy Beard

I have nominated Talk:Andy Beard (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. I figure Talk: shouldn't redirect to User talk:... It just doesn't seem appropriate. Tuvok 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing Andy Beard has been deleted! I have my copy User:Igorberger/Andy Beard the other copy Jehochman made for me at User:Igorberger/Drafts/Andy Beard but I did not need it so he must have deleted it or redirected not sure! I only need my sandbox copy, I do not need any redirects. Igor Berger (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No need for redirect this Talk:Andy_Beard just delete it being that the article is deleted, and if I am not mistaken a talk page cannot exist without an article. Igor Berger (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this as well User_talk:Igorberger/Drafts/Andy_Beard Igor Berger (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it only me?

What I see is a huge rush to ban the guy. Why? Why not some deliberation? I never said "this guy should not be banned".

Look what other's wrote:

I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B

…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan

All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan

Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan

A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX

I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by Orderinchaos 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - very selective quote which omits context

based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B

I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B

Of course, it's easy to do nothing and look the other way. Given the above quotes, I thought that immediate ban was not indicated. I thought that a compromise was in order. The details of a compromise is not the question but if there should be a compromise.

This is not wikilawyering. Wikilawyering would be a hard line stance for unblocking to counter the hard line, no bargaining stance of the pro-immediate banning side.

I know that you are in favor of quick banning so seeking advice from you may not be the best idea. However, you do show some interest in discussion (which is good on your part). Archtransit (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Roper-Industries.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Roper-Industries.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Jehochman, I don't really understand why you've shifted your position on this article, but I think that your actions, while well-intentioned, are aiding a bunch of POV-pushers. I have formed a negative opinion of Neutral Good simply from his tendentiousness at Talk:Waterboarding, as well as my suspicion that he's a sockpuppet of User:Bryan from Palatine, but I've participated in discussions with Blue Tie before at Talk:Global warming where he's used the same type of tactics he's using at waterboarding. Please read the sections about Naomi Oreskes' article at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_21#There_is_something_wrong_with_the_Oreskies_cite and see if you think this is an editor who's consistent about the OR policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed banning User:Neutral Good, so I am not soft on him. My position in neutrality is based on a discussion with somebody well-placed who certainly isn't a partisan. Show don't tell will be more convincing, and is more in compliance with policy. Saying "waterboarding is torture" is like saying "the sky is blue". Why state the obvious? Jehochman 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I disagree with you here: I think that saying "Waterboarding is a form of torture that involves..." is like saying "The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is a plant in the Solanaceae or nightshade family..." or "Benjamin Jonson (c. 11 June 1572 – 6 August 1637) was an English Renaissance dramatist, poet and actor." In other words, the first sentence of the lead should give as straightforward a defintion of the article's topic as possible, and that includes noting the topic's membership in a larger class, be it poet, plant, mammal, or torture. (By the way, sky does say that the sky is blue.)

Another reason to "state the obvious" is because we have some people working very hard to argue that it's not obvious.

Can you say who you've had this discussion with? I suppose it doesn't matter, but if they would actually come to the article and participate in the dicussion, it might help... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I should not reveal the content of private correspondence without first getting the other person's approval, but yes, they are actively working on the resolution. Did you notice that David Gerard blocked a Bryan sock today? See User:The Friendly Ghost. Let's not let the banned users force us to modify our normal behavior. We should literally ignore them and write as we would if they did not exist. Jehochman 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand about private correspondence, and I agree with the idea that banned users shouldn't alter our editing. To make it clear, though, I think the first sentence of the lead is fine, and I think it's the activities of sock puppets and tendentious editors that are causing it to come under question.

I probably would modify the latter part of the lead to make it clear that some members of the Bush administration and others have suggested that waterboarding may not be torture, etc., but I'm happy with the first sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the first sentence also. However, if the various opposers turn out not to be banned editors, then we should think about ways to arrive at a consensus version. There is no need to state "is torture" when we provide a more specific statement that exactly fits the definition of wikt:torture. Also, the word "torture" is less than precise. A definition that explains all the details may be less subject to wikilawyering. We could also say "Waterboarding, an illegal form of torture that could get various people indited for war crimes, is an interrogation method that involves...", but that would be excessive window dressing. Perhaps the best way to generate consensus is to remove all framing an stick to the cold, wet facts. Jehochman 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit

I have left a suggestion for a compromise / learning too on Archtransit's talk page. As you have been personally affected by this situation, your input would be more than welcome. If you'd rather not comment / get involved, that's fine too.

Peace. - Revolving Bugbear 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As to your Using IP to evade scrutiny

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Standshown and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Standshown I am warning you that logging out to game the three revert rule or to avoid scrutiny of your actions is not allowed. If there are further incidents of this nature, you may be blocked from editing without further warnings. Regards, Jehochman Talk 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide evidence for this accusation! If no evidence provided - I am going to escalate this problem before ArbCom as an orchestrated harassment!--Stagalj (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Standshown and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Standshown, and you are welcome to escalate or to request an independent review of the warning I have given you. Jehochman 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Same link both times isn't it? 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Jehochman 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)