Revision as of 05:27, 31 August 2008 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →User:Fat Cigar as a puppet: expand← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:02, 31 August 2008 edit undoJohn Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 editsm →User:Fat Cigar as a puppet: fixNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
: See ]. Best to drop the matter at this time. If the new user behaves badly, we can deal with them on their own account. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | : See ]. Best to drop the matter at this time. If the new user behaves badly, we can deal with them on their own account. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Jehochman, please undo your pre-emptive closure of this WP:AE thread. As you well know, it is appropriate for Arbitration enforcement to take action to achieve long term preventative action - that doesnt make it punitive . Plenty of time has been given for DreamGuy to apologise, or produce diffs, and the reluctance to do either is why action on this has been delayed. You are involved in this matter, so it is inappropriate for you to close it. If you cant know your own limits, or recognise when you have stepped over them, that reflects very poorly on your other efforts which are increasingly losing focus on content. It is unhealthy. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Response requested re warning to Abd == | == Response requested re warning to Abd == |
Revision as of 07:02, 31 August 2008
This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page. |
Political positions of Joe Biden
This is an actual quote by Joe Biden in response to moderator Wolf Blitzer at the democratic presidential debate 2007-11-16. The full transcript is cited in the previous paragraph. Is there more to this story? — CharlotteWebb 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
RFAR notification
Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
Hi Jehochman, I'm not nagging or anything, I just wanted to check if you got the email I sent you? Sticky Parkin 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, thank you. It is my policy to conduct business on wiki for routine matters. I understand that you had concerns about editing by a third party. Feel free to address those concerns directly, sensitively and in a constructive manner. Editors here should feel comfortable to giving, and receiving, thoughtful feedback. Jehochman 22:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't feel it was something I could say publicly myself, the reason being that anyone could read it and also I consider the person concerned a wikifriend, plus you are probably better at handling these things. But perhaps you have taken a look at what I mentioned, or might bear what I said in mind anyway.:) Sticky Parkin 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly will! Jehochman 01:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I took your advice and went for it.:) Sticky Parkin 01:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly will! Jehochman 01:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't feel it was something I could say publicly myself, the reason being that anyone could read it and also I consider the person concerned a wikifriend, plus you are probably better at handling these things. But perhaps you have taken a look at what I mentioned, or might bear what I said in mind anyway.:) Sticky Parkin 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Ears burning?
I have dropped your name at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Jehochman 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that all 27 people who signed the recall petition (a lot more than 6!) were acting in bad faith? Your point is not clear. Jehochman 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, just that it is not equitable to seek to enforce the letter of a promise (if offers for recall can be considered promises at all) in circumstances where it is contrary to the spirit or the substance of the promise. It's an analogy to the legal world that I think is apt here: specific performance is an equitable remedy, and someone seeking equity must do equity.
- Essentially I'm saying (without necessarily criticising anyone) that I consider this wikilawyering (and yes, I appreciate the irony of drawing legal analogies to say so!). --bainer (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Too much thinking for my taste, but thank you for the reply. The plain English of the pledge was clear enough. If circumstances had changed, it would have been good to post some sort of notice promptly, and change the recall criteria explicitly, rather than waiting for events to unfold. I see no reason to push the matter further. Observers will draw their own conclusions. (Note: I did attend law school, and am familiar with the concepts.) Jehochman 01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposal for de-admin...
I saw that you've suggested some sort of community process for removing a user's admin rights. What do you think of WP:DESYSOP? (probably needs a re-title, or move, or something... but I find it hard to argue with the concept that present a clear consensus for a de-sysop, it shouldn't be actioned.... thoughts most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have edited your proposal, mercilessly. Thank you very much for starting this. Feel free to "edit war" with me over my changes. :-) It may also help to announce this in places where editors with a high clue quotient tend to hang out. Jehochman 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- High clue quotient? How lovely, where are those places? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC).
- Sorry, if you don't know, I can't tell you. Jehochman 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- El Dorado? Utopia? New Atlantis? Hmm... I know, Herland, right? Bishonen | talk 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC).
- Shangri La. <-click-to-giggle Jehochman 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone for a sort of 'multi idea' approach now - and you probably noticed that I mentioned this at the village pump.... I wouldn't be surprised if it gets noticed appropriately fairly soon... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom entry: ?
Purely uninvolved user here who saw your post on User:Bishonen's page because he's on my watchlist for some reason. I just read your arbcom submission, and... did you link to the correct diffs there? is most definitely not instigation for the desysopping of ChrisO, is quite civil, and Elonka was even careful to be transparent in his (her?) actions by crossposting the statement so ChrisO could see it.
Basically, and not to butt in on something that isn't my business, but you seem to be seriously jumping at shadows here. I would personally suggest you withdraw that arbcom request before it becomes an embarrassment to all involved. --erachima talk 08:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka failed to disclose her past disputes with ChrisO, and she outlined the process for getting his sysop bit removed. If you dislike my request, please file a comment at WP:RFAR and state your reasons. At Misplaced Pages everything is your business. Feel free to butt in wherever you like if you can add to the discussion constructively. Jehochman 08:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process is a matter of public record, Jehochman. I would expect any rational editor to give that same reply if they saw a new user attempting to make a complaint in the wrong venue, no matter what history they had with the user whose actions were being questioned.
- But whatever, carry on as you wish. I still think this is either a giant misunderstanding or you're being very, very silly. --erachima talk 09:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jonathan. I have to agree with erachima here. Elonka wrote that the desysop request was stale and that there are less draconian routes for dealing with conflicts over templates. Might you possibly have slightly misread what Elonka wrote? It might be worth reading Morven's comments on Bishonen's talk page and NYB's carefully weighed final comments on the previous RFAR: they seem to acknowledge problems in dealing with good editors of long-standing, which, if shown to be unresolved, would probably result in the acceptance of a future RFAR. I fear that you might have unwittingly jumped the gun here. Just my 0,01 € worth :-) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. I have amended my request. The issue of Elonka and the IP reveals to me a potential for an ongoing feud. Of course Elonka is free to make those comments, as I am free to request arbitration in hopes of quelling the feud, thus preventing disruption. Jehochman 11:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you or someone can explain why arb administrators are voting already whether to accept or not before you finish presenting what's on your mind or allow others to make comment. I find it confusing to see a vote for denial before things are even finished to explain what the problems might be, if any. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you read what they said in their posts, it's because they think the request is frivolous. --erachima talk 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is confusing. It seems like the emerging consensus is that this is a personal conflict and that we should just avoid each other. See WP:SNOW. When the resut is obvious, we can skip steps. Meanwhile, watch the arbcom elections carefully and be sure to vote for good candidates. I like Newyorkbrad's habit of not voting until all parties have had a chance to comment. Jehochman 18:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. I've been following this whole thing for a while myself now and I just don't get why people make any judgements before allowing everything to come out to see if there is a problem. Right now I am not saying in this last ARB that there is or isn't a problem but I did want to see what everyone wanted to say in full before I made an educated decision. I thought I saw that Jehochman had more to say then what is there but now it seems he shouldn't continue with the other difs because almost everyone has decided it is frivolous, well how do the ones who voted know without allowing for everyone to say their piece first? Erachima, I understand what you are saying but what I read was there was more information to be provided. Well personally I think the whole situation needs to be heard because there is a lot of unsaid and bad feelings going on with a lot of people. Just look at Elonka's talk page. Since the comments made at Jimbo Wales talk page I believe three more people have asked her to step down. Something is definitely wrong when so many people are commenting on this and getting no way to find some answers by anyone. I myself endorsed her to stand for a new RFA and I don't have any beefs with anyone here on Misplaced Pages that I am aware of. I feel that the community should be listened to and right now I also feel like more than once I have been lumped in as being some kind of bad character or something because I feel a new RFA is the right thing to do. I don't know maybe I am wrong about this but I feel the community in the whole needs some kind answers at least on how to solve this situation already. Right now, IMHO I think a lot are just sweeping things under the rug and hoping for it all to go away, and it seems it will, this is sad I'm sorry to say. Sorry for this little rant, it's not like me but I feel very confused about this right now and feel that there is no reason to do any of these policy avenues since unless you are a unknown person it's not going to the community for complete comments. Maybe I am wrong about this but maybe Misplaced Pages isn't what I thought it was. Oh and I too like the way NYB handles himself and was very thrilled to see his return. --CrohnieGal 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Fat Cigar as a puppet
User:Jayvdb has filed a complaint (after the Pmanderson aka Sept. complaint) against me because I pointed out that User:Fat Cigar is a meatpuppet account. He is portraying that my stating that is uncivil and etc. and hopes to get me banned over it. Considering that you were the person I saw who labeled Fat Cigar as a puppet and can point out that he/she is, in fact, an account apparently created by someone who pre-existing knowledge about Wikilawyering to support a single purpose, it might be helpful if you could post a comment in that section explaining it. Also, if there is some official designation of puppetry, etc., if you could point to that, or get it declared, etc., that'd be helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jagz. Best to drop the matter at this time. If the new user behaves badly, we can deal with them on their own account. Jehochman 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, please undo your pre-emptive closure of this WP:AE thread. As you well know, it is appropriate for Arbitration enforcement to take action to achieve long term preventative action - that doesnt make it punitive . Plenty of time has been given for DreamGuy to apologise, or produce diffs, and the reluctance to do either is why action on this has been delayed. You are involved in this matter, so it is inappropriate for you to close it. If you cant know your own limits, or recognise when you have stepped over them, that reflects very poorly on your other efforts which are increasingly losing focus on content. It is unhealthy. John Vandenberg 06:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Response requested re warning to Abd
Jehochman, I'd appreciate it if, before I solicit broader participation in my userspace RfC, you would look at my description of your warning that led to my block. As you know, I considered your warning improper; however, in the RfC page given, I specifically examine it and provide the context, and will be soliciting broader examination of this if you and I cannot find consensus on it. Please comment, should you choose to do so, on User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, with respect to the questions asked there, and my responses to them, or otherwise as you see fit. If you could agree that the warning was in error, this would resolve the matter as far as your involvement is concerned, likewise if we can agree that it was proper. This request is an attempt to resolve a dispute without escalation, per WP:DR. I look forward to your response. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Literally NOBODY has got involved in this - he's now trawling around try to get anyone with a good rep (and highly visible administrators as yourself) to get involved, so he can use it as a spur for others to do so. Don't rubberstamp this sham. Yes you were involved in this but you've done your bit and I'd leave it at that. --87.113.10.208 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, Fredrick day, as usual, with his helpful advice. It's not true that nobody has gotten involved, a number of users specifically gave me permission, early on, to notify them re the RfC, and I haven't done that yet, nor have I done any general announcement, I'm attempting to make this minimally disruptive. This contact, Jehochman, is a necessity for me, as I assume you know, not for you. The RfC is at its first stage in examining the block, and this much is true: Nobody has yet commented except for Fredrick day, and that was over the process, not the actual RfC. What I'd recommend, Jehochman, is that you read the Talk page referenced above, and look at the evidence (as relates to the warning you gave me, not necessarily what came later). (The user page is just a list of the questions at this point, it will be like summary minutes of the RfC when it's closed.) Presently, it is only about the single edit I made to my Talk page, the one that you warned me about, and your warning. The questions consider whether or not the warning was based on an accurate assessment of the situation. Since you can now examine the issues at leisure, you might possibly see it differently. You now have an opportunity to convince me that I did, indeed, do what you claimed, or, to the contrary, to acknowledge that I did not, and thus, presumably, to apologize. It's just about the warning, not the block, at this point. Your comment is not a necessity, but it could avoid further process, should we be able to agree with no more fuss. If you decide not to look at it, could you name an admin you trust whom I could approach? Particularly one whom you think would give it a fresh look? --Abd (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am busy in real life and have a few other things on my Misplaced Pages agenda at the moment. I prefer not to rehash old disagreements. It is easy enough to make a fresh start. In any case, you could approach User:Carcharoth for an independent view. If Carcharoth tells me I've made a mistake, I will listen to the feedback carefully. Jehochman 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- While I'm disappointed that you wouldn't look at it (it should only take a few minutes), I'm pleased with your suggestion re Carcharoth. I'll contact him. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)