User talk:Jehochman - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 17:41, 6 August 2008 (→Diversification: reply to Elonka). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:41, 6 August 2008 by Jehochman (talk | contribs) (→Diversification: reply to Elonka)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

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.

Vandalism

   *******Can we move this to Lennar Discussion page?*****--David Tornheim (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Yes.  Feel free to tidy up this thread and move the relevant part(s) to that page. Jehochman  23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

~~Two users are hereby being put on notice for continuing vandalism to this article by removing sourced text in the controversy section of this--Lennar Corporation--article:~~

Jehochman

Kneakie1
~~It is my understanding that if this behavior is continued, penalties such as being blocked from future edits to this site may be imposed.~~

~~--David Tornheim (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)~~

This is partially my fault I suppose. I should have been more clear on what constitutes vandalism during my conversation with this user. I warned User:Kneakie1 for deleting the controversy section entirely, without discussion, and for turning the article into a soapbox. I guess David was under the wrong impression of what constitutes vandalism, and what does not. I apologize for not better explaining things to him, and I'll be more careful with new users in the future. Landon1980 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, thank you. I understand that company officials may be frustrated with uneven handling of their article, and that they may take matters into their own hands. I intend to prevent that. But if we ask them to be hands off, we need to ensure that neutral point of view is followed. They do have a point that their Misplaced Pages page should not become, intentionally or unintentionally, an attack piece. Jehochman 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, I'm not really experienced enough to know when that is or isn't the case though. I became involved while patrolling the recent changes. The deleting of the controversy section entirely without reason is what caught my eye. I don't really have an opinion beyond that. Here lately I have been doing quite a lot of vandalism fighting, but I usually only revert blatant vandalism. I try my best to stay away from content disputes. I trust you will do the right thing regarding this, so if you will watch the article I can be done with it. Landon1980 (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I struck out the original Notice of Violation above. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However, I did write a long piece about my confusion about Misplaced Pages policies and "majority views". I suppose I agree that the page should not be exclusively an "attack piece" on the corporation any more than it should be an advertisement. However, each of these views have legitimacy, and evidence to back them up, so why sensor them? What constitutes an "expert" or "expert knowledge" of a corporation, its practices, its belief, its utility/futility/value, its affect on the economy, customers, workers, etc. I know Misplaced Pages has guidelines on writing about people, but what about corporations and other institutions?--David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Extended content
See also: Hello, Jehochman. You have new messages at Lennar Corporation's discussion page's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I know the above is wrong, but close.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Also with regard to neutral point of view, this policy I find interesting but confusing too. I presented a fact and a source. However, there may well be other facts and sources. I may or may not know about them. I may or may not have hours to spend researching or looking for a view that doesn't even interest me to begin with. If someone contends that there are other facts and sources, shouldn't the burden be on the person asserting the other facts and sources to dig them up and present the "other side(s)"? rather that just deleting well-documented verifiable information that took the time and labor of the person who present that side. What if, for example, there was ONLY information that Lennar Corporation did X (and that X means Y) and no information that Lennar Corpration did not do X (or X does not mean Y or X means Z)? Why would I be required to present a view that is unavailable? I have seen NUMEROUS sites that have omitted conflicting opinions--opinions that seemed particularly obvious to me. Can I just go and delete willy-nilly when I even SUSPECT an opposing view has been supressed but I don't even know for sure? I seriously doubt you would want that? I assumed the responsibility was mine to present and document opposing views if it bothered me that I didn't see them, rather than delete the hard work of others presenting a view I suspect is incomplete. But perhaps not??? This policy seems to me to ENCOURAGE DELETION of very high quality writing.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC) You know, your complaint is actually very usual on the talk pages of controversial articles, when one editor starts adding lots of sources for one of the POVs on the article, and someone deletes most of it claiming WP:UNDUE. At that point, editors are supossed to go to the talk page and reach a consensus through discussion, or should I say a WP:CONSENSUS, which is based on facts on wikipedia policies and not just agreement between editors, and use the steps described at WP:DR dispute resolution when they can't reach a consensus. Notice that all these policies and guidelines are based on greater or lesser degree on Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which claims that you can reach objective thruth by discussion, and starts by assuming that there is such a thing as an objective thruth (in this particular case, assuming that there exists one and only one objective thruth about when sll POVs are given an adequate weight, and assuming that this thruth can be discovered thorught discussion......) You can blame Jimbo Wales ~~for being a fanboi of Ayn Rand~~ for founding wikipedia upon those principles. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Shrug. When expanding an article, it is often helpful to add proportional doses of facts from each main point of view. To describe something completely, you need to say what it is, what it isn't, why it is good, and why it is bad. I am not an objectivist so much; more an armchair anarchist. It is not our job to tell the reader what to think! We should present a complete and accurate picture and let the reader decide what they want to believe. Jehochman 02:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the responses and further information. I read up on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR dispute resolution. It does not surprise me to hear that a key developer of Misplaced Pages founded Misplaced Pages on a principle that "you can reach objective truth by discussion, and starts by assuming that there is such a thing as an objective truth." I did notice that the NPOV page addresses the complaint, "There's no such thing as objectivity": Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the 'neutrality' policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible....Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them. \* \* \* If there is anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to describe disputes in such a way that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively. Whether this is possible is an empirical question, not a philosophical one. I can't say I truly understand what the second paragraph means. It seems to be founded on some assumption you regarding the nature of truth that I'm not entirely sure I agree with. So, let's get back to the meat here. The undeniable fact I presented can no doubt be described as one perspective on the company, among countless others. It is alleged this is a "minority view". However, I see no evidence for that. Why is it a "minority view"? How can you know that? Is there a "majority view"? If so what is it? I have seen no evidence for another view--only silence and deletion and censorship. By deleting it, my impression is that the "majority view" is NOTHING and emptiness. Also, there is a comment describing the company and its products. That text has no source AT ALL. I believe anyone can, therefore, delete it. It seems to be encouraged, in fact. It seems to me, the policy encourages us to say nothing and that everything should be deleted. But please, correct me if I am wrong. Finally, in case there is any question, I'm not satisfied with the status quo, where my deleted text remains deleted. Although reasons were given for the deletion, I don't really see any of them as valid or convincing, which I explained in detail. The Board's decision (regardless of whether the Board's opinion is biased or based on false information, reached through question processes, etc.) is a documented fact and, for better or for worse, has some affect on the company and people's impression of the company. I'm stating my dissatisfaction with the status quo of having that text deleted, because according to the rules, during a discussion of opposing views "consensus" is to be reached. Also, according to the policy quoted above, the goal is "that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively." No consensus of the parties has been reached. Assuming I'm a "major player" in the debate about the deletion of the text I added, I do not believe the view/fact I presented is "sympathetically" and definitely not "comprehensively" presented. It has simply been erased ENTIRELY. No compromise has been proposed or offered by those who have deleted the well sourced text other than to leave it deleted--that's not a compromise. I offer this compromise: I'm not at all opposed to someone with some alternative perspective attempting to incorporate it into the article, hopefully backing up that view with evidence, sources (if available), and good, high quality, concise and to the point writing. That seems like a reasonable solution to me. And of course, that would require that the deleted be restored. Agreed? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC) And now you know why we ask that the texts have sources. Remember that text that you complain that it wasn't deleted in spite of not being sourced? Well, it turns that it was wrong on a pair of accounts . It's no longer a Fortune 200 company, it has presence on 17 states and not 18 states, and it's not one of the largest builders, it's exactly the second one (at least as of 2008). Anyways, you can have unsourced text on an article as soon as it's not challenged or as editors agree that it's obvious information that doesn't need sourcing, like saying that America is a continent or that ex-president George Bush senior is the father of current president George W. Bush, or stuff like that. It depends on the topic. For example, you can see history articles that have whole unsorced paragraphs simply because editors interested on history already know that the information is correct and don't think of challenging it. And on those cases you shouldn't remove the text directly as unsourced, or you will be told a lot of nasty things by other editors who know that the information is obvious to anyone knowing history. You should either make yourself the effort of sourcing the info, or explaining why you think that the information is incorrect or inaccurate (to satisfy the WP:BURDEN burden of proof requirement), or find sources that show the information to be incorrect. If you can't do any of that, you can add {{fact}} tags to request a citation. Tags usually remains for weeks, month or even years until someones sources them, depending of how many people edit the article, how controversial the tag is, the difficulty of sourcing the info, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC) This is STILL AT-ISSUE Three Days have passed and the issue remains unresolved. If I don't hear back, I assume those who deleted the material regarding the San Francisco Board of Education have lost interest and/or do not want to negotiate in good faith. However, I don't know what the deadline for a response is and/or counter-proposal. If there is Misplaced Pages policy on deadlines regarding responses to disputes, please point me to the code.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC) /Post responses above this line, please/

Extended content

See also:

Hello, Jehochman. You have new messages at Lennar Corporation's discussion page's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I know the above is wrong, but close.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also with regard to neutral point of view, this policy I find interesting but confusing too. I presented a fact and a source. However, there may well be other facts and sources. I may or may not know about them. I may or may not have hours to spend researching or looking for a view that doesn't even interest me to begin with. If someone contends that there are other facts and sources, shouldn't the burden be on the person asserting the other facts and sources to dig them up and present the "other side(s)"? rather that just deleting well-documented verifiable information that took the time and labor of the person who present that side.

What if, for example, there was ONLY information that Lennar Corporation did X (and that X means Y) and no information that Lennar Corpration did not do X (or X does not mean Y or X means Z)? Why would I be required to present a view that is unavailable? I have seen NUMEROUS sites that have omitted conflicting opinions--opinions that seemed particularly obvious to me. Can I just go and delete willy-nilly when I even SUSPECT an opposing view has been supressed but I don't even know for sure? I seriously doubt you would want that? I assumed the responsibility was mine to present and document opposing views if it bothered me that I didn't see them, rather than delete the hard work of others presenting a view I suspect is incomplete. But perhaps not??? This policy seems to me to ENCOURAGE DELETION of very high quality writing.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, your complaint is actually very usual on the talk pages of controversial articles, when one editor starts adding lots of sources for one of the POVs on the article, and someone deletes most of it claiming WP:UNDUE.

At that point, editors are supossed to go to the talk page and reach a consensus through discussion, or should I say a WP:CONSENSUS, which is based on facts on wikipedia policies and not just agreement between editors, and use the steps described at WP:DR dispute resolution when they can't reach a consensus.

Notice that all these policies and guidelines are based on greater or lesser degree on Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which claims that you can reach objective thruth by discussion, and starts by assuming that there is such a thing as an objective thruth (in this particular case, assuming that there exists one and only one objective thruth about when sll POVs are given an adequate weight, and assuming that this thruth can be discovered thorught discussion......) You can blame Jimbo Wales ~~for being a fanboi of Ayn Rand~~ for founding wikipedia upon those principles. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. When expanding an article, it is often helpful to add proportional doses of facts from each main point of view. To describe something completely, you need to say what it is, what it isn't, why it is good, and why it is bad. I am not an objectivist so much; more an armchair anarchist. It is not our job to tell the reader what to think! We should present a complete and accurate picture and let the reader decide what they want to believe. Jehochman 02:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and further information. I read up on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR dispute resolution. It does not surprise me to hear that a key developer of Misplaced Pages founded Misplaced Pages on a principle that "you can reach objective truth by discussion, and starts by assuming that there is such a thing as an objective truth." I did notice that the NPOV page addresses the complaint, "There's no such thing as objectivity":

Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the 'neutrality' policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible....Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them.

\* \* \*

If there is anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to describe disputes in such a way that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively. Whether this is possible is an empirical question, not a philosophical one.

I can't say I truly understand what the second paragraph means. It seems to be founded on some assumption you regarding the nature of truth that I'm not entirely sure I agree with.

So, let's get back to the meat here. The undeniable fact I presented can no doubt be described as one perspective on the company, among countless others. It is alleged this is a "minority view". However, I see no evidence for that. Why is it a "minority view"? How can you know that? Is there a "majority view"? If so what is it? I have seen no evidence for another view--only silence and deletion and censorship. By deleting it, my impression is that the "majority view" is NOTHING and emptiness.

Also, there is a comment describing the company and its products. That text has no source AT ALL. I believe anyone can, therefore, delete it. It seems to be encouraged, in fact. It seems to me, the policy encourages us to say nothing and that everything should be deleted. But please, correct me if I am wrong.

Finally, in case there is any question, I'm not satisfied with the status quo, where my deleted text remains deleted. Although reasons were given for the deletion, I don't really see any of them as valid or convincing, which I explained in detail. The Board's decision (regardless of whether the Board's opinion is biased or based on false information, reached through question processes, etc.) is a documented fact and, for better or for worse, has some affect on the company and people's impression of the company.

I'm stating my dissatisfaction with the status quo of having that text deleted, because according to the rules, during a discussion of opposing views "consensus" is to be reached. Also, according to the policy quoted above, the goal is "that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively." No consensus of the parties has been reached. Assuming I'm a "major player" in the debate about the deletion of the text I added, I do not believe the view/fact I presented is "sympathetically" and definitely not "comprehensively" presented. It has simply been erased ENTIRELY. No compromise has been proposed or offered by those who have deleted the well sourced text other than to leave it deleted--that's not a compromise. I offer this compromise: I'm not at all opposed to someone with some alternative perspective attempting to incorporate it into the article, hopefully backing up that view with evidence, sources (if available), and good, high quality, concise and to the point writing. That seems like a reasonable solution to me. And of course, that would require that the deleted be restored. Agreed? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And now you know why we ask that the texts have sources. Remember that text that you complain that it wasn't deleted in spite of not being sourced? Well, it turns that it was wrong on a pair of accounts . It's no longer a Fortune 200 company, it has presence on 17 states and not 18 states, and it's not one of the largest builders, it's exactly the second one (at least as of 2008).

Anyways, you can have unsourced text on an article as soon as it's not challenged or as editors agree that it's obvious information that doesn't need sourcing, like saying that America is a continent or that ex-president George Bush senior is the father of current president George W. Bush, or stuff like that.

It depends on the topic. For example, you can see history articles that have whole unsorced paragraphs simply because editors interested on history already know that the information is correct and don't think of challenging it.

And on those cases you shouldn't remove the text directly as unsourced, or you will be told a lot of nasty things by other editors who know that the information is obvious to anyone knowing history. You should either make yourself the effort of sourcing the info, or explaining why you think that the information is incorrect or inaccurate (to satisfy the WP:BURDEN burden of proof requirement), or find sources that show the information to be incorrect. If you can't do any of that, you can add {{fact}} tags to request a citation. Tags usually remains for weeks, month or even years until someones sources them, depending of how many people edit the article, how controversial the tag is, the difficulty of sourcing the info, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is STILL AT-ISSUE Three Days have passed and the issue remains unresolved. If I don't hear back, I assume those who deleted the material regarding the San Francisco Board of Education have lost interest and/or do not want to negotiate in good faith. However, I don't know what the deadline for a response is and/or counter-proposal. If there is Misplaced Pages policy on deadlines regarding responses to disputes, please point me to the code.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

/*Post responses above this line, please*/

Regarding Lennar

Hello, Jehochman. You have new messages at Kneakie1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

By the way, I moved the discussion from this user's talk page to the article's talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! See if you can counsel the newbie editors on both sides. They are welcome to participate on the article talk page, but if they have a COI, they should avoid editing the article as that would inevitably lead to trouble. Jehochman 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

regarding Ideogram

Thanks for resetting the ban , Jehochman. However, it doesn't seem to show on his block log . I'm not sure why. Is this a technical issue?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are one thing, bans are another. If his block expires and he starts editing, we can deal with it. I'd actually like that because it would give us something to checkuser against in case he tries socking. Right now we don't have any fresh edits to compare potential socks against. Further, if he happens to return and is constructive, we can get rid of the ban. Bans are not punitive; they protect against disruption. Jehochman 04:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the ban reset doesn't require a block. Under past circumstances, ban-evading sockpuppets are always blocked indefinitely and the puppet master's ban is reset (meaning block is restarted). For instance, "His excellency" ] who was banned by arbCom for 6 months repeatedly created Ban-evading socks. Everytime a sock was discovered, the ban was reset with a 6 month block starting from the date the particular sock was located. You warned him on his talkpage saying his ban is reset, but here we are telling me Ideogram can come back. Isn't this like rewarding him for circumventing his community-ban? If bans do not equate block, why did Chris block Ideogram for a year after the decision in CSN last August? How should we deal with him if he does edit with Ideogram? Do we block him on sight since he will be "violating" his non-binding ban? As for your concern for fresh log, User:66.234.217.151's contribution ] shows the connection between Ideogram and Slashem and should be recent enough to check.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, as mentioned at User talk:Blnguyen. Jehochman 12:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jehochman. I think you should block the IP address User:66.234.217.151 for 1 year as well to avoid potential sleeper socks.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't block IPs for so long normally. If socks appear, let me know, or you can go right to WP:SSP if I am unavailable. Jehochman 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. An IP block for how long is justified in this case?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

None is required unless there is active socking, then it is up to the blocking admin to pick a number. I'd look at how long the user had been on that IP and block for about that same length of time. Jehochman 11:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EBay-screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EBay-screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

All's well that ends well

Hello Jonathan. Things did turn out well in the end. Good work! I wonder whether the Wikiquette discussion on me could be deleted now or a comment added. It was due to my confusion of what A and P said (see what I added there) which apparently is now explained. Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. See, with patience, editors sooner or later show their true colors and the situation is resolved. Jehochman 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Hopefully the problem will not recur, even after the unblock of User:Bharatveer. All this was quite unpleasant and tiring. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends, lurkers, and others

Could a few of you please watchlist WP:FPC. There is a bit of disruption going on there. Just pop in once and a while to help if you can. Thank you! Jehochman 02:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you share some details with us? I don't know what I'm looking for. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. I received a report of irregularities, and a request for more eyes on the page. Jehochman 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Thread in which you are involved

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#help_needed Enjoy. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No further input is required from me. I have already explained the reasons, but the IP is obviously intent on disruption. I trust that other administrators will deal with it. Jehochman 05:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I suspect that 216.80.119.92 is Lakinekaki, because

Except for one earlier edit, it became active less than two hours after Lakinekaki's last edit, in which he said he would edit Misplaced Pages anonymously.
Most of its edits so far are in two afd's where Lakinekaki had been heavily involved, and in both it seems to have the same point of view as Lakinekaki.
It seems to geolocate to Chicago, where Lakinekaki says he is.

As for the SA connection, SA took Lakinekaki's recently deleted article Process equation to afd, and clashed with him at Solar cycle.

In all fairness to 216.80.119.92, it didn't double vote, and this looks to me like a case of just not signing in.Cardamon (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 216.80.119.92 (talk · contribs)

Hi, I saw that you warned the above IP for attacking ScienceApologist. I thought I should make you aware that this is Lakinekaki (talk · contribs), who has retired his main account in order to "edit anonymously". He appears to have a vendetta against several editors, such as Arthur Rubin and SA. He seems to be mainly disruptive now. (CoI: He doesn't seem to like me either, though not as much) Verbal chat 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I should have read your talk page. I see you are aware. Apologies. Please delete this. Verbal chat 08:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to like me either, though not as much

Would you like it to be as much? ;-)

67.184.176.224 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

maybe these edits and their summaries have something to do with liking you seem to use vandalism templates quite easily and with interesting explanations.

67.184.176.224 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes and socks

Hi, J, and long time no see. I'm posting because the "Martinez & Caldwell" sockpuppets and hoax article situation (see also User talk:Athaenara#Protection of deleted article) is getting repetitious and monotonous. The sockpuppet reports (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and the blocks which have been issued have not stopped new socks from registering and engaging in precisely the same actions as before. Do you know what humongous clue about an effective approach I seem to have missed? — Athaenara ✉ 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you too! Go to RFCU in the IP check section. Explain the problem and request a checkuser to identify and block the underlying IPs.A rangeblock might be useful. Jehochman 01:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did so (diff) and hope I didn't do it totally wrong. — Athaenara ✉ 02:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a note to make sure they do what is needed. Patience now, and soon this will be resolved. Jehochman 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And so it is. Jehochman 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, J—looks like I came to the right place for advice! It's too soon to know whether the campaign has been slowed down (see chronology) but Alison's one-month blocks of three IPs may have short-circuited it for a bit. — Athaenara ✉ 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Diversification

Jehochman, taking a look at your contribs over the last few days, Jehochman (talk · contribs), it appears that nearly all you've been doing, is hovering over my RfC and reacting to everything. As I'm sure you know, you have already been cautioned for harassment on multiple occasions. Some of your comments at the RfC have also been, shall we say, not as truthful as they could have been. So, could you perhaps try to find something else to do on Misplaced Pages, that isn't related to me? Thanks, El on ka 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I fail to see how this helps anyone, including you and Jehochman. It's manifestly unhelpful and reactionary. Consider deleting it and my comment along with it and calling the whole thing a wash. Antelan 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to examine his contribs for yourself. --El on ka 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I like to work on one problem at a time. If you review my last 5,000 - 10,000 contributions you will notice that this is my habit. In any case, the subject of an RFC does not get to decide who can comment or how much. If my comments were excessive, or otherwise improper, uninvolved editors would have noticed and said something to me. Since I finally posted my comments this morning (it took a while to give things proper consideration), I have very little else to say. Hopefully that news will make you happy. Thank you for visiting my talk page. Jehochman 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)