Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:37, 9 December 2009

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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 generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

That messy thing

Excuse my commenting on this, but this re-opening of the resolved mess by erasing the "resolved"s is not a good idea. It is not my place to undo that, but someone ought to (or do something more fitting) ... Someone whose voice will not be questioned. (No reply necessary.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It will be simpler to just not post anything else to that thread. It can end naturally. I am not going to block anybody over an unretracted personal attack of the form "you did X wrong", where clearly X is false and everybody sensible knows it. If the accusations appear on other fora and continue to be repeated, then maybe, but not yet. The person making the accusations is damaging their own reputation, but causing no harm to Cirt. Jehochman 03:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciate your response/insight. The "wave dynamics" seemed not to be trending toward "damping," but will trust your experienced eyes/gut. Oh and, happy holidays. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. I've sprayed some flame-retardant foam on the thread. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Jehochman 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jehochman, I appreciate your input and sound judgment in this matter. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jehochman 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I agree with the summary you made in your closing of the thread as resolved and archiving it. But Redheylin (talk · contribs) has yet to retract anything or state that he will refrain from his inappropriate behavior of attacks in the forms of unsupported claims against other editors in the future. How can this be remedied? Also, will you monitor the thread to make sure it stays archived as is this time? :P Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I will watch. I assume Redheylin will take the good advice that's been given, or else we'll deal with any failures when they happen. Jehochman 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give Redheylin (talk · contribs) a warning at his talk page similar to the one left in the "resolved" close of the thread? Or is that redundant and not necessary? Cirt (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Redundant, and possibly unhelpful. He's already been warned by GWH, two or three times. Piling on may only make him feel cornered and he might behave worse rather than better. Jehochman 04:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, agreed, that sounds reasonable. A side note, Redheylin (talk · contribs) has placed tags at the top of articles I subsequently improved, North Carolina v. Alford and Alford plea. A third-party editor stated the tags should be removed . And then we have the comment about the quality of my research and sourcing by Brumski . Can those tags be removed? Cirt (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not for me to decide content matters. Go to the appropriate noticeboard and ask uninvolved editors to help form a consensus. Jehochman 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good idea. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, please see . Recent comments by Redheylin (talk · contribs), after your close of the ANI thread, seem to go against the warning you had left at the top of the "resolved" portion of the ANI thread. User continues to make unsupported attacks. What to do about this? Cirt (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New, but related issue: At article Rajneesh movement, Redheylin (talk · contribs) introduced WP:WEASEL wording and then completely unsourced material . So apparently, Redheylin (talk · contribs) feels he can make unsupported claims about editors, and also add unsourced material to controversial articles? Cirt (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreso concerned however with that former issue. Cirt (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You could start an RfC on them. I don't see much chance of a long term block or ban until we develop a consensus that they are more trouble than their contributions are work. Jehochman 14:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Jehochman, he is still making unsupported attacks, eg, . Can you take some sort of action here? The user has already received numerous "final warnings" about this from other admins. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can you start a discussion at WP:ANI, leaving diffs and especially diffs of the warnings. I'll check on it. Jehochman 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Can you have a look? Cirt (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of another very hot dispute (that appeared to have been resolved, but just exploded). I will definitely look, but I might not act until the other dispute is resolved, or until we get some input from uninvolved parties. Jehochman 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As you wish... :( Cirt (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Even I can only handle so much drama at a time. Jehochman 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If only you had worked in "inconceivable" into your response. Shame on you, Jehochman. xD --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that word means what you think it means. Jehochman 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You've made my day. xeno's a Star Trek fan, you like The Princess Bride... I like this site's admins. :P --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A Note

You will already be aware of my views about Die4Dixie's comments towards you today. I just wanted to reiterate my abhorence of his appalling calumny against you (and Slrubenstein) and share with you my view that no editor should ever be the target of such hatefulness. I might add that I am greatly saddened by those who would attempt to rationalise what he has done. My best regards, Crafty (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The sheer number of apologists is appalling. Maybe things will get better when people wake up in a few hours. Jehochman 08:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I earnestly hope so. Crafty (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When a disruptive editor is confronted, their friends are often the first to respond. In time, the thread achieves a sensible balance. Jehochman 08:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I'm certain commonsense will prevail as more reasonable editors read the thread and share their views. That said you have conducted yourself with commendable restraint under these trying circumstances. A most creditable performance in the finest traditions of WP administrators. :) Crafty (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this page is reserved for criticism only. ;D Jehochman 08:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just chimed in; I'm on that damn page today, anyway. Really, there's nothing but trouble with this 'anyone editing'. This is what 50kg banhammers are for. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Some people get an unfair deal, but this guy seems to have been given more than enough chances to shape up, and he has no apparent intention of doing so. Jehochman 08:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I considered your original 1 week block appropriate but lenient given the history. After reviewing the editor's contrib history I would fully support a community ban. When I sat down at the computer with my first cup of coffee and logged in to WP, I was hoping to find something that would make me smile; y'know, one of those amusing comments left at Evolution or Black hole. Needless to say, I'm not amused. Doc Tropics 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry this spoiled your morning. I think we need to draw a line in the sand that attacking other editors based on race, religion or ethnicity is out of bounds; the same as making a legal threat. Block until the remark is retracted. Jehochman 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that idea in general, and would even expand it to include nationality, gender, and sexual orientation. However, any policy that touches on "motive" would require very careful wording. Once the current issues have been resolved I think it would be a very useful to initiate a community discussion. Good luck, Doc Tropics 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Werwalt´s talk.

You have a message there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied there. Jehochman 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn´t watching his page. See you there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain?

Would you care to explain why you collapsed the subthread at ANI calling it a "tangent"? I'm interested in your reasoning.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a disruptive, retaliatory tangent that did not have a proper basis. That thread has been horribly disrupted, and I predict that the matter will end up at ArbCom, and several parties may be sanctioned as a result. Jehochman 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cut down on unwanted drama.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If there are issues with an administrator, those should first be discussed with the admin directly. Then find a neutral party to provide a third opinion. If that fails, consider starting an admin conduct RfC. Jehochman 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

High ethics and integrity

A propos of . Jehochman, FT2 possesses high ethics and integrity, but you have to realise he needs a clear desk and a more appropriate venue before adding more explanation of the difference between October and August. Bishzilla has asked me to remind you that any explanation by FT2 of the timing of your action needs to fit round his work and others' work, real life, and other historic matters, and to coincide with a family season, a new arbcom season and the start of the working year. He could also need to check various large archives, with review item by item where a search cannot be specified, to ensure accuracy, and to ensure the balancing of that with a few overriding issues, if applicable, such as privacy of users, WMF requirements, ability to cite emails and getting permission if needed, and so on. Since he doesn't have the necessary detailed information about the difference between October and August, he can't change it with any precision, so he's overall going to let it stand. Don't fuss, now. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

Wikivoice interview

I removed several Wikivoice interviews from candidate statement pages because they do not appear to be neutral and they were not added by the candidates themselves. However your interview seems more neutral and you have added it to your own user page so I assume you approve of it.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to leave it. Jehochman 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman - me again. While I admit to having some issues with some of your edits on WP, I did listen to your interview. I strongly suspect that we could be great friends IRL. I thank you for taking the time to do the interview, it did allow me to feel that I got to "know you a little better". I wish you the very best in the real world, and offer enjoyable holiday wishes for you and your family. Hugs and kisses to that new little addition to the family. All my best, Ched. — Ched :  ?  21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ched, thank you for your kind remarks. Disagreeing is not a fault. I've never thought of you as a bad guy (), and I hope you enjoy your holidays too. We've got a lot of wrapping and decorating to do. Best regards, Jehochman 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking the bull by the horns

Other than citing the diff as rationale for changing from support to strong support, what do you suggest I do with this post? /me resists urge to call you "Cowboy" or employ compound noun formations of "bull" Durova 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged, ma'am. You may keep it forever and ever. Yee ha! Now I gotta go find me a bull to ride. Jehochman 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(sotto voce) With bad guys and 10 gallon hats ... sounds like a Western. :-) Perhaps a Misplaced Pages musical. (Gallops away humming.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy trails to you 'til we meet again. Durova 00:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi Jonathon, I know you are a very experienced Admin and I am seeking your advice please on how to handle a situation which has been dragging on for many months now, see User talk:Nopetro#Inappropriate additions relating to renewable energy and regards Johnfos (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy ?

which wiki policy states that citations are not required in lead section ? WillMall (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

When the lede summarizes material in the body that is cited, there is no need to place redundant citations in the lede. Jehochman 14:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

... and for the fine print see WP:LEADCITE. Hans Adler 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Account sharing

This is regarding Kils (talk · contribs · count) (who was mentioned in a recent ANI thread you commented on). Thought I'd let someone else review this and weight in, but isn't this and this evidence of account sharing and as such forbidden? Or is it allowed under some circumstances? Thanks, OhNoitsJamie 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the account. Sharing an account is strictly disallowed. Jehochman 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can I have person X banned for a while? K, thx.

No, really, what was going through your head for those three minutes you took to consider indefinitely blocking a six-year contributor to wikipedia because of an unproven allegation? ˉˉ╦╩ 07:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so hasty to assume bad faith. You should look into an issue before jumping to conclusions.

1. The user was discussed at WP:ANI yesterday (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Evidence of bribery for favorable user statements & related AfD). I already reviewed the matter and commented in defense of the user: I don't see the bribery at all. Could you lay it out plainly, or else strike that portion of the report? I was up to speed before Ohnoitsjamie posted here.
2. The diffs above show the account being used by multiple persons. This is strictly forbidden by WP:NOSHARE: Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Jehochman 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not assume bad faith, I investigated your actions and found them negligent. As mentioned in the log, I took time to review the relevant afds, talk pages, and an/i threads. Please do not lecture me on policy, I never claimed that account sharing is allowed or that role accounts should be tolerated. Your actions were far too hasty and you did not take the time to properly investigate the accusations before blocking this user - it's as simple as that. It is ridiculous to claim that a six-year-old account with a featured article to its name is a role account, it is equally ridiculous to claim that the alleged account sharing over the past few years is a time-critical emergency that has to be settled with a block. The fact that you were already involved in the issue, by advocating in a prior AN/I thread, means that you were part of the dispute and should not have been the blocking admin.

It is disappointing to see that an admin can be played into blocking an account by a user involved in an ongoing grudge against the accused. You did not take the time to ask Kils about the accusations, you did not consult another admin or arbcom member when presented with serious charges against a user in good standing. This is negligent.

And I should be "ashamed"? For what exactly, disagreeing with you? By the way, thanks for the notification of the an/i thread that you "closed" before I even had a chance to comment. I also love the passive-aggressiveness of "all in all, a lot more grief for the user than if people had told them firmly that they needed to follow policy, and then fully unblocked them when they agreed to do so." Am I the "people" you speak of? Did I do anything to encourage this user to break policy? Why, what bad faith of me!

We're both admins, we've both been wrong before and we've both taken criticism in interpretation and enforcement of policy. I may have been overly harsh, but it was reason that led to my unblock, not emotion. ˉˉ╦╩ 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you post a sarcastic comment here instead of calmly explaining your concerns? Why did you repeat the "three minute" remark at WP:ANI when I already told you that was not true? If you want me to assume good faith of you, please go strike your pleasure. I'm nearly a five year tenured editor with two featured article credits. You're treating me like a worthless person to be insulted at your pleasure. User:OhNoitsJamie is an administrator who has proven quite reliable in my experience. You're stating bad things about them, without any sort of evidence. Take a look at what you're doing and try to do better. Jehochman 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The three minute remark is true, it took you three minutes from being informed of the offense to deciding on a block. That implies a near-instantaneous judgment. My comment was sarcastic because I was shocked by your actions and I tend to be a sarcastic bastard. It's ironic that you bring up your record, which I'm pretty sure I did not comment upon, as a defense after you blocked an editor with equal tenure. Do you think perhaps that being blocked in such a matter would make him feel like a worthless person?

Feel free to criticize my actions, I don't mind, but don't use that criticism to dismiss your own mistake. ˉˉ╦╩ 01:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• (Aside/humming along) Perhaps a song about the bar fight for the Misplaced Pages Western holiday musical review. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • With that cue, I'd like to propose cutting my arbcom election commentary to "I am not sure that Jehochman would be able to recognize when he is being baited or when an accusation of breach of policy is made in a bad faith attempt to gain advantage over another editor. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)" I hope that this redacted version will satisfy your concerns. If not, please revert. ˉˉ╦╩ 02:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you extremely much. If you don't mind, can we remove our follow up comments to the talk page, or get rid of them altogether? Jehochman 02:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Yup, that's enough stress for one weekend. Cheers ˉˉ╦╩ 02:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
        • You're a good person, I can see. Only a good person would call themselves a sarcastic bastard! Yes, I see your point that the issue could have been discussed with the user rather than blocking. In the past we've always blocked role accounts on the spot because they are a violation of Misplaced Pages's free content license. We're required to attribute each contribution to somebody, not to a group of somebodies (as I understand it). Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify policy so that we're all consistent (more or less) in our actions. To warn or to block, that is the question. Best regards, Jehochman 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock of Tancarville/Mobile Historian

Just FYI, it looks like our friend is back at it with User:Nemesis029, a new account whose edits to date involve vandalism and edit warring on the Maltese nobility article and tinkering with my user page .  RGTraynor  20:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Misplaced Pages talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I was right

Hi, this came up on my watchlist. I reverted it as it was unnecessary and a personal attack. Was it right of me to remove this? I have not commented to the editor who I reverted. Thanks for any advice you have. --CrohnieGal 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Even banned users should be treated with civility. Failure to do so may energize them to be more disruptive. Jehochman 13:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Why didn't you notify me about your unfounded accusations at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Die4Dixie? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your input was not needed. Per the instructions at WP:SPI, Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. Jehochman 19:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very civil way to handle the matter, considering that I'm an editor in good standing, and that you had no evidence for your assertion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For better or for worse, you were caught socking previously as User:Uga Man. This tends to bring suspicion on you when you defend disruptive editors who also look like they might be socks because of username similarities (i.e. User:Die4Dixie and User:Confederate till Death). I struck your name off the SPI report once we discovered that those two were most likely not related. It is my perogative to file an SPI report, to name whomever I think might be relevant, and to notify or not notify as I see fit. As for civility, Die4Dixie was making anti-semitic slurs and you were repeatedly minimized or excusing them. You're in no position to deliver lectures on civility. I am not interested to spend further time arguing with you. We are not going to come to any agreement, and no further action is required by either of us. Jehochman 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you did a little research you would find that I have never socked. I am not "Uga Man" as has been explained numerous times. You have bigger fish to fry then continuing a personal grudge with editors who disagreed with you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a personal grudge. When an editor places an anti-semitic, racist, of similar sort of out-of-bounds attack against me or any other editor, I will make sure they are banned until they retract the attack and undertake never to repeat. As for your block log, if that sock puppetry block reason is not accurate, you should ask User:Tiptoety to set the record straight. As for you and me, I have no conflict with you, other than that you appear to be pursuing a vendetta on behalf of Die4Dixie. That's not a smart thing to do. Jehochman 20:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic, I defended the user one time in order to prevent the drama that you caused. Why don't you look at the first comment after Jayron closed the post the first time. And I am upset, not because of Die4Dixie but because of your baseless claims. There was no reason to include me on the report and to top it off by not notifying me. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the logic that defense of a user should necessarily validate suspicions of their being in cahoots really needs to stop. It smacks of real old-time witch-hunts, and could be seen as a tactic (whether intentional or not) to discourage defense of unpopular users. "Ah, you defend him, maybe we should be investigating you too, eh?" This is not a good thing. If there's no evidence other than having defended the user, then there is no evidence. Equazcion (talk) 21:16, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense as a general statement. However, there aren't so many users here who operate openly outside the boundaries of civilised society. If one outs themselves and another comes to their help then that's enough for an initial suspicion. Hans Adler 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. We don't mark everyone who ever did something wrong as likely suspects. That's not how it works here, or in any free society. People who have made mistakes are allowed to speak their minds even with unpopular opinions, without fear of being suspected of something just because. Equazcion (talk) 22:51, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Correction, you weren't even talking about past mistakes. You were suggesting the mere defense of an unpopular individual warrants suspicion. That's plain nonsense. If that view were upheld then everyone would be paralyzed from speaking their minds for fear of being suspected of something, should their opinion turn out to be a minority one. The minority is allowed to speak without being suspected of wrongdoing. What you're suggesting is something characteristic of totalitarianism. That's not Misplaced Pages. Equazcion (talk) 22:57, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is WP:DUCK. Hans Adler 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

DUCK is subjective. You're offering your views on the threshold of DUCK, and I'm telling you that those views are not accepted as general practice on Misplaced Pages. The defense of an unpopular individual doesn't even look suspicious. Only to you (and possibly a few select others who have it backwards as well). Equazcion (talk) 23:10, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Defending the user in that situation was way beyond the pale for someone who (I am relying here on what others said without contradiction) has outed themselves as a racist in the past. That's enough reason for an initial suspicion. Jehochman didn't block anyone per DUCK, so obviously this was only a reference to the general principle, which clearly has the support of the community. Hans Adler 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Saturn contradicted it in this thread, and "outed" would not be an entirely appropriate way of referring to the actions of a sock puppet anyway. Hans Adler 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Defending the user in question was beyond the pale in your mind because you so staunchly believed that the evidence against him was incontrovertible. The contrary opinion was just as valid, despite the lack of any doubt in your mind. For the purposes of my exchange with you now I'm not talking about Jehochman's reasons, since as you say he was acting on more than DUCK. You on the other hand have said that the defense of the individual was alone enough to warrant suspicion, which is what I'm saying is nonsense. No matter how sure you are that an individual is guilty, and no matter how many people agree with you, that's not enough to suspect the people on the other side of wrongdoing. As far as Jehochman's rationale, he was acting on the user's past infractions as well, which is slightly more reasonable, but only slightly; people who have done things wrong in the past aren't marked for eternity as likely suspects. Equazcion (talk) 23:31, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have missed "for someone who has outed themselves as a racist in the past". That was of course part of the duck test. Hans Adler 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

...and again, you believe the evidence that the individual has outed himself as a racist in the past is incontrovertible. Others are allowed to disagree with you, despite how sure you are, and without being suspected of anything. Your call is not the end-all decision by which all other opinions are judged. Equazcion (talk) 23:49, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about Saturn, who I am not personally familiar with (which motivated the disclaimer). Die4Dixie is almost certainly either a racist troll or a kid under bad influence. (I went through much of that user's edit history and saw some things that I didn't mention in the ANI.) For the purposes of an initial suspicion it was OK to assume the first. Hans Adler 23:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I now see that Saturn denies the Uga Man connection. This was not at all clear from the ANI thread, where the accusation (which was based on Saturn's block log) stayed uncontradicted. Saturn rightly complained on my talk page, and I have apologised for my mistake. My main argument remains basically unaffected unless Jehochman knew at the time of opening the SPI that there is reason to doubt the Uga Man connection. Hans Adler 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils

I would welcome your input in this SPI. Checkuser has come back with a positive match for all of these accounts, and I believe the behavioral evidence is strong enough to mark them as sockpuppets. The sockpuppets have been blocked accordingly, but I wondered what you think should be done about the sockmaster. NW (Talk) 22:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Insinuation

I think I just realized what you thought I was doing: that my example phrase was meant to be directed at you. I just wanted to let you know that although we disagree on many things, I would never be so petty over mere disagreement. It takes a lot for me to hold a grudge against someone enough that I'd allow it to influence my dealings with them across separate discussions, let alone take cheap shots. We're far from that point, at least from my perspective. There are some users with whom I have struggled to maintain my composure, but they are people who take delight in provocation. You and I just disagree, and in my mind there's no reason two people who disagree can't argue civilly. Equazcion (talk) 07:34, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Big smile. You spotted my deadpan humor. No worries. Jehochman 11:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Kils restrictions

See this and feel free to reply there, here or anywhere (or archive the ANI thread again). I'm not too concerned really, just wondered if it'd be appropriate to document it. NJA (t/c) 14:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have strong feelings either way, so I'll watch from the sidelines. Jehochman 14:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

= He is still denying these were sockpuppets. What to do? Cirt (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: And now, canvassing, with , , , . Cirt (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an unsophisticated (wikiwise) user who needs help to comply, rather than confrontation. Jehochman 13:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, the account has been around since 2003, not counting the other sock accounts... What is to be done about the canvassing? Cirt (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gave the user the standard canvassing notice, and placed a notice at the AFD page. This seems like an attempt at an end-run around your restrictions. Cirt (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

I'll help out with a copyedit, but I don't have the sources, such as the definitive "At Dawn we Slept", required to fix that article the way it needs, and deserves, to be fixed. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting that reference. Let me see if I can get hold of a copy. I just finished reading Thunder Below by Eugene B. Fluckey. Jehochman 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to read Thunder Below sometime, as I've been told that it's arguably the best of the first-hand submarine accounts from the war. Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll help you with copy-editing too, if you like. Anything to keep my mind off the election will be a good thing. AGK 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What election? Jehochman 14:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not. AGK 02:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • When there is any doubt about my remarks, assume sarcasm. Jehochman 13:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From the past

Prompted by Mathsci's question, I've just re-found Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Statement by Jehochman. Do you care to add, or subtract, anything from that, based on subsequent events? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest something? If you are, I am not sure what it is. Please speak plainly on this page. Jehochman 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You should interpret the question literally. I will interpret your answer, or lack thereof, in the same way William M. Connolley (talk)

ZOMG. There's another vote that I need to change. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I could interject, William, I think Jehochman can sense, as everyone else can, that you're attempting to make a point. He's asking that you spell it out, rather than make vague angry challenges, before he addresses you. You can't expect anyone to feel the need to respond to a question when they don't necessarily know what your actual concern is. Equazcion (talk) 23:47, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can convince you that I'm not trying to make a point, but I'll try: were I trying to make a point, I'd be putting this on the candidates arbcomm pages (as several pointy people have in my case). Given that I don't have a point, I can't spell it out. I don't see an angry challenge here, and if you're reading it that way, please don't. As I said, please read the question literally. I doin't understand your You can't expect anyone to feel the need to respond to a question when they don't necessarily know what your actual concern is - you appear to be suggesting the JEH needs some kind of prompting towards what a "correct" answer might be. OTOH, if you (or he) find the question at all unclear or ambiguous, I will be happy to try to clarify William M. Connolley (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If I misjudged your tone I apologize. Still though, your question is vague, and frankly not worthy of a thoughtful reply. Just because someone is a candidate doesn't mean you can present them with any past comment and expect them to tell you how they might change it. If you have a specific concern I'm sure Jehochman would address it, but a general "any comments on this", unless the concern is overtly self-evident, isn't reasonable. Equazcion (talk) 00:08, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know if this is what Equazcion meant, but to me your question to Jehochman sounded very similar to: "Please read my mind and do what I want you to do. If you don't guess correctly I will be angry." You know, the game that some people (reputedly mostly women) play with their partners. Apologies if I am totally of, but that's the association I immediately got in my mind. Hans Adler 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically yes, that is what it sounds like. Even without making that assumption, though, expecting someone to take the time to consider something when they don't know why they're doing it isn't fair. If you want someone's thoughts, tell them what specific concern prompted your question. It's common courtesy. Equazcion (talk) 00:20, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

It is a question. It is to be taken literally (do I really need to say that again?). I don't know why you're projecting weird games onto the question, nor is it especially clear why you feel the need to defend JEH from my ferocious attack. Would it be acceptable to you two to step back and permit JEH to answer? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The speculations have arisen because you have started a free association game that seems to puzzle everybody but yourself. Don't complain if others play that game and do freely associate on the scarce material that you have given them. Jehochman has already made it clear that he doesn't understand what you are driving at, and I think he is big enough to clean up his talk page and respond, if that's what he wants to do. Here is another speculation: Perhaps Jehochman's not understanding you is related to the fact that he doesn't have a binary world view. Hans Adler 08:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman is permitted to answer whenever he wants. I'm not preventing that. I can still ask you a question in the meantime, though. What specific concern prompted your question? You must have some concern, otherwise why ask? Equazcion (talk) 00:37, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Here's a clue ATren (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really help. Again the presence of a concern is evident, but what that concern is, is not. Equazcion (talk) 01:02, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

No, that dress does not make you look fat. You look wonderful. Jehochman 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews

Thanks for you comment at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare restriction review. I'm not sure if you noticed what actually started the issue: It was Brews himself who added the Computational physics category to the Multigrid method article in the course of editing it. Before that, it was only assigned to math categories. I believe that the category assignment is the only reason that Tznkai saw Brews's editing that article as a topic ban violation. It is a head-scratcher.—Finell 07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Führer der Misplaced Pages!

You'll love this; User:7107delicious's new sig:

• User talk:7107delicious#I am getting bored of my old signature!

Cheers, Jack Merridew — Sockenpuppe der Misplaced Pages! — 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)