Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jehochman

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 08:16, 28 June 2008 (→possible sockpuppet of Atari400, 71.107.84.105: results). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:16, 28 June 2008 by Jehochman (talk | contribs) (→possible sockpuppet of Atari400, 71.107.84.105: results)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Xiutwel and 9/11

Hey Jehochman, check out the section entitled hello on my talk page and inform me at User:Redmarkviolinist/Talkpage2 on how I dealt with the questions that Xiutwel asked me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Review Me! 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Search engine optimization has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing the sockpuppetry case, although sadly it won't reverse the damage it has done. The retired user burnt his bridges when he resulted to abuse. Thanks anway! = ) --Cameron* 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For reversing the decision on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii I had almost lost faith when nothing was getting done about this. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you sincerely for reviewing the case. However, Fonez' two latest comments I believe show that he still has not accepted the fact that he used a sock to mislead others, and as long as that continues we will not get anywhere. He is now, in fact, gloating at the fact that he hasn't been blocked. ( and .) --Schcambo 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't suggest something so ridiculous. Neither of those diffs suggest I was gloating that I had not been blocked. One user said that "justice had been done", and I said - yes it had, since I had not been blocked. Hardly gloating. If I were to gloat, an example would be "haha! I'm not blocked. you hate that!", etc. And I did not use the sock to mislead others. I am not going to say I did something I didn't. --fone4me 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No admissions or denials are required. Be clear to all concerned who's doing the editing, and there will be fewer problems. One user, one account is fair. Jehochman 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Barryob courteously notified me that my decision was reversed. Let me just explain what happened on my end. I looked at the list of suspected sockpuppets at the top of the page, then I skipped to the checkuser results, and I saw that Wikipiere was not Fonez4mii, so that ruled out the possibility of multiple accounts stacking consensus, and I didn't see a problem with the anonymous edits. Jehochman's diff number 7 on the SSP showed that User:Fone4My was a disruptive sockpuppet of Fonez4mii. I had been unaware of that, and had I known, I would not have closed the sockpuppet case the way I did. I hope those of you who needed to work overtime because of my lack of awareness will forgive me for it. With the volume of workload I handle at SSP, a mistake of this type is almost impossible to prevent, so I can only apologize and try to be more careful in the future. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, Fonez4mii is just a signature but not a real username, and redirects to User:Fone4My. So I'm still trying to figure out what my mistake was. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
He eventually admitted to using the IP address. There were multiple diffs showing himself attempting to pass off the IP as a separate user. That was the problem. Don't worry about it too much! Jehochman 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed that. It wasn't perfectly obvious from the presentation of the case, but I've reviewed a good chunk of it just now, and I can see how pretending the IP was a separate user violated policy. I have seen at least one similar case in the recent past. I didn't realize that Fonez4mii, by admitting the IP was his, was deflecting attention from the fact that he used the IP to stack consensus.
I'm going to chalk this one up to the length of the discussion. It's true I didn't read all of it, and I still haven't, but it must be remembered that I'm a volunteer, and I do this for fun, and though I take SSP cases seriously, I can't avoid every possible pitfall. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Thanks for your input in any case. --Schcambo 04:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please can I point out that I never had the intention of deceiving anyone with the IP, and I only originally got logged out by accident, at which point I engaged in conversation with User:GoodDay on my IP talkpage. Then, in order to get back to this conversation, I kept logging back out to get to my IP talkpage. I then sometimes didn't log back in for the main discussion on the Scotland article.
I promise I had not intentions to deceive anyone. I apologize for not making it clearer that I was one person, but I didn't see it as a problem at the time, since I didn't think anyone would assume I was two different people, which apparently some did.
Ps, thanks for reverting the vandalism from my page.
--fone4me 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies to you

First, for circumventing a block - you have my word that I will not do this again. I've read your profile page, checked your edits, and you seem to me someone who is a tribute to Misplaced Pages, and for that, I apologize for my untoward behavior, and any imposition I've put on you. Please be assured that I have never harmed any living thing in my life, and have no intention to. There is no threat, explicit or implied, in anything I've said to AnotherSolipsist. I was simply jerking his chain, because an independent watchdog group watches his edits, and I think he's a danger to the credibililty of Misplaced Pages. If you look at his edits on such things as Pedophilia you will see he is a very clever POV artist, and the source of a lot of misinformation. However, none of this really matters anymore, as I'm so disgusted with this project that I've 4 years of time and effort into, that I want nothing to do with it anymore. I wish you the best of luck, however, in making Misplaced Pages better with your obvious respect for the principles that made this website great at one time. I ask you one favor, if you feel inclined to do this for me. Please just leave my user page alone now. I get the point. Just leave Googie Man be, and I'll move on. Best, the former editor Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.197.194 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If you come back as a new account and don't cause any problems, and stay away from past conflicts, nobody is likely to make anything of it. I will keep an eye on any POV pushers I encounter. Jehochman 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If I am correct, most administrators are aware of this group. Bear in mind that the group is notorious for their tendency to provoke, inability to fact check, and are currently being sued for this. It's probably best not to even mention them, so I wont go further. forestPIG 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A diff that you requested

forestPIG 22:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the process...

A checkuser just had said the case didn't need looking into, heh... Thatcher suggested it be listed as a normal sockpuppetry case, but that would be an exercise in futility because we definitely know those are sockpuppets, it's painfully obvious. The point was that the guy looked like he was going to be really persistent at first, so I wanted to explore whether a rangeblock would be feasible. But he went away, so it's a moot point now.

So... I should have just left a comment to that effect then? I'm just trying to understand what the right process is if the checkuser says, "Take it elsewhere," and I'm like, "Enh, nevermind."  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Leave a comment retracting the request and state a reason if you like. Maybe somebody else will see something that you missed, and then they'll have a chance to comment too. Jehochman 18:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I was hesitant to do this right after my error yesterday at WP:RFCU -- but I think in this case it should be uncontroversial. (Note that in addition to being severely malformed, it does not even list any suspected socks... heh...) What do you think? Was that removal also out of process, or is that okay since this is a malformed (and also bad faith) report? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

possible sockpuppet of Atari400, 71.107.84.105

I think I may have come across a sockpuppet of User:Atari400.

This edit lead me to my accusation, along with the fact that many of this IPs edits seem to be similar to those of Atari's. The IP is hesitant to Afghanistan being considered South Asian . Atari has made similar pages many, many times. Their edits also coincide with Atari's interests as per his userboxes . They both have edited regarding slave trade, Middle Eastern military, and various Middle Eastern and Central Asia articles. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Atari400 did not retire, he was flat out banned

71.107.70.47 is the same as 71.107.84.105. 71.107.84.105 changed it to retire too. He did not retire. He was banned for being a sockpuppet. Atari400 was caught with a sock puppet before on Template:Countries of the Indosphere, which is now deleted. Can something be done with Atari and his socks? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Your evidence is convincing. These are obvious socks. It has come to my attention that these are withing an IP range used by Grawp. Perhaps there is a connection. Jehochman 08:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hello Jehcohman,

Thank you for your help on improving the Big Valley Fishing vessel article.

--Grandscribe (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like shipwreck articles! Jehochman 13:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RFCU FT2

Two points, and I hope you don't take offense at these:

  1. The RFCU had already been done by Alison, who found that the account was not compromised.
  2. I disagree with the idea embodied by your edit summary (ArbCom is capable of policing themselves.).

That said, thanks for your RFCU work. Regards, Antelan 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

After your last message

Another occurrence Antelan 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I will let another admin place the block that seems inevitable here. Jehochman 02:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I placed a message on their talk page that sort of elaborates the preferred process (namely, the use of talk pages) in the hopes that this person doesn't have to be blocked at their first introduction to WP... Here's to hoping they will take it to heart. Antelan 02:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)