This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 14 December 2009 (→Don't do X or you will be blocked: Humming ... as previously). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:07, 14 December 2009 by Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (→Don't do X or you will be blocked: Humming ... as previously)(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.
|
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)
- I've been exploring the Nopetro situation some more, and it now seems likely that he is a sockpuppet of User:Mac, a known sockpuppeteer (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mac (2nd nomination)) and indefinitely blocked user. As someone who has edited and watched many energy-related articles for a long time, I have had my suspicions for a while, as Nopetro became more active after Mac was blocked in November 2008. Now I've compared these editing tool results with these and their are a lot of common editing patterns and pages which both have edited, across similar subject areas. For example, plug-in hybrid is the top edited article for Nopetro and the second top for Mac and both have been active at Portal:Electric vehicle. Both have also been very active on pages related to solar cells. And (at the other end of the spectrum) there are some quite obscure pages which both have edited, eg., Template talk:Infobox Automobile and those related to Category:conversion templates. Both have also been active in creating many dubious category pages, some of which have later been deleted. Johnfos (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you like, it would help to gather the above information to a report at WP:SPI so that the complaint is visible to other editors. Somebody may know something that will help shed light on these matters. Please leave me a link and I will help out as time allows. Jehochman 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would be grateful for your further help, as time allows. Initially I have posted my above note on Nopetro's Talk page, but as you say it may well be that it will have to go to SPI. Johnfos (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Embarassed to say that I have tried to follow the instructions at WP:SPI but wasn't successful in getting the Nopetro complaint on the page, so here it sits... Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Request for assistance Johnfos (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Update: CU request declined at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac. Johnfos (talk) 02:16, 12 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)
- ...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)
- 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)
- Defending the user in that situation was way beyond the pale for someone who (I am relying here on what others said
- 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)
- What I am suggesting is WP:DUCK. Hans Adler 23:03, 6 December 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- This is an unsophisticated (wikiwise) user who needs help to comply, rather than confrontation. Jehochman 13:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Bah, I'm sorry. This header was hidden up here already? Err, well for booking purposes I linked a bunch of things and even more concerns about the user and colleagues than before down below, and Cirt entirely showed me up on speed since I went into more detail. Also, if you want to get really technical, the new string of user talk canvassing was started after I suggested another read of the restrictions placed and a reply given to that posting, so that would mean he's consciously ignoring them (at best). This is so frustrating since all he had to do to end this was probably just let the AfD re-complete itself. Good luck, and for what it's worth I do completely agree that confrontation would feel incredibly empty and sad after going through all of this to have him unblocked and his autobiography article evaluated fairly. Good luck. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:04, 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)
- Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not. AGK 02:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- What election? Jehochman 14:31, 8 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No, that dress does not make you look fat. You look wonderful. Jehochman 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- That is hilarious! It took me a minute to get it, but then I laughed out loud. :-D ATren (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that was a clever line by Jehochman (inverting the traditional gender stereotype on this matter would have been better, but perhaps too clever), even though it may have partially contributed to losing William's vote. "Didn't answer my vague and rather odd question (which I refused to clarify) in the right way, therefore voting against" (I might be paraphrasing there, possibly) is an amusingly petty rationale though, so I wouldn't worry about it much.
- That is hilarious! It took me a minute to get it, but then I laughed out loud. :-D ATren (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say however that there has been too much of Arb candidates mixing it up with one another during this election, and that kind of thing (even when it seems to occur by happenstance) does not tend to do anyone involved credit. I've noticed several candidates in tiffs with other candidates, and now that I think about it I did not vote for any of them. It might be good advice for future ArbCom candidates to avoid their "opponents" (for lack of a better word) like the plague while the nomination and election processes are running. Spats with fellow candidates just don't look good, even if one is trying to address legitimate issues. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
On to happier, more manly topics. Yesterday I found a barbershop in downtown Hartford that keeps a chilled keg of beer in the waiting area, providing free brews while you wait! That will definitely improve my tonsorial standards, if not my figure. Jehochman 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I used to get my hair cut at a place that had beer on tap and a pool table for customers' use while they were waiting. Of course, the haircut itself was obscenely expensive, like almost John Edwards territory - but the beer and pool were free. MastCell 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you're looking to get a little bit toasted and are not in dire need of a haircut, the smart move at these sort of establishments would be to say to those who arrived after you, "No, really, you go ahead" and then quietly sneak out once you've had your fill of hoppy goodness. Of course that rather goes against the spirit of the thing, and probably they won't let you back in again...unless you come back in disguise! If you actually get to that point though you likely would need to consider whether you should be drinking at all.
- Also this makes me wonder—why doesn't anyone, at least to my knowledge, ever set up licensed barber shops in the backrooms of bars and pubs? Some kind of zoning problem, or rules set up by OSHA and its counterparts outside the U.S.? Because combining those two businesses makes a great deal of sense to me, though it could admittedly lead to some bad decisions ("A mohawk? I should not have gotten my haircut after that seventh beer..."). No doubt the names of these establishments would be rather too obvious ("BARbers", "Bar-bers-shoppe," "Get Drunk and Then Get Your Hair Cut, Or Vice Versa," etc.) but still as far as idears go I think this is a winner. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Update. Apparently there's something kinda like this, but it's quite upscale. I'd be interested in a place with a more working class vibe, and where the haircut frankly isn't even that good. Would attract a better crowd. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also this makes me wonder—why doesn't anyone, at least to my knowledge, ever set up licensed barber shops in the backrooms of bars and pubs? Some kind of zoning problem, or rules set up by OSHA and its counterparts outside the U.S.? Because combining those two businesses makes a great deal of sense to me, though it could admittedly lead to some bad decisions ("A mohawk? I should not have gotten my haircut after that seventh beer..."). No doubt the names of these establishments would be rather too obvious ("BARbers", "Bar-bers-shoppe," "Get Drunk and Then Get Your Hair Cut, Or Vice Versa," etc.) but still as far as idears go I think this is a winner. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:40, 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)
- Thanks for closing it.—Finell 19:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Führer der Misplaced Pages!
You'll love this; User:7107delicious's new sig:
Cheers, Jack Merridew — Sockenpuppe der Misplaced Pages! — 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Kils -- Sad to report a possible violation of restrictions. Already.
I was hoping this would have just ended, finally, but based on User:Kils/Restriction that went through the normal process of arranging and agreement to unblock under condition of, I seem to see the restriction on he, his student or colleges having absolutely anything to do with articles, discussions or XfDs (short of BLP content violations).
Per #4, I have to give the following-- , done entirely in the open and in order on his contributions page. Even worse are , which would seem to be solicitations to retired or essentially retired users. I was really hoping they would never fit into this, because there was a lot of dubious edits in the past from User:Tannin in particular regarding outing of users with CU data that was never restricted, but it's only a few user talk page history clicks away to get up to the current student/secretary/whatevers user list. Instead of just realizing that the re-renomination of his autobiographical article was going to end with a 'Keep' or no consensus at worst with some calls to close it, it seems we WP:BEANS'd the user him into diving even deeper in to a web of... whatever he has. I had been researching the SPAs as possible socks while the actual SPI was posted, but I'd been working from past to present and found those new contacts farther down. ... Sorry to trouble you on this, but I hadn't seen it posted elsewhere by anyone and NW was directing persons to contact you. Thanks... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems I tried to sign this too early. It's just turned into endless canvassing/blanketing or whatever form of covering large areas you want to call it from after a look at Special:Contributions/Kils -- ...Well okay, I won't list the others (many).
...Cheers(?)~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um, okay that bit of canvassing most recently appears to be after I warned him against canvassing on his talk page. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- We should wait until the user is no longer hopping mad before sanctioning them again. The point is to see if they can calm down and be productive. Jehochman 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions
Hi Jehochman. Per this discussion, it doesn't seem appropriate to have Misplaced Pages:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Administrators. I can appreciate why you may have imposed the sanction, so I'd probably suggest you start a discussion at WP:AN to get a community consensus for the sanction. But if you don't want to proceed with that, then it's likely that the entire entry will be removed from the page. Please think about it and see what you want to do. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- You should contact an editor directly before reporting them to ANI.
- When you start an ANI thread about somebody, you should notify them immediately.
- The discussion has not reached a consensus yet. The discussion begins after I present my side of the story.
- Your actions are creating needless strife, and causing volunteers to waste time. Jehochman 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello JEH. I've commented on the matter at User talk:Ncmvocalist#Sanctions that are imposed by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Jehochman, please assume good faith, and improve your reading and comprehension. Firstly, if I was reporting you, your name would be in big writing at the top of the thread and I would have no reluctance in presenting the pattern in which you conduct yourself - I neither need your permission nor invitation to do so, and I'm pretty sure it is common knowledge that I will not be intimidated to that effect by anyone either. Secondly, this thread was at AN and was not about somebody - it was about procedure and the best way to clarify policy, guidelines, and practice. It was at the point that the discussion seemed to suggest that it was your actions that were in question that I left you this message which also acted as a notification. Finally, the discussion that needs to reach a consensus is at Misplaced Pages:Discretionary sanctions - not a mere discussion at WP:AN. If anything, it is your actions and responses that are creating needless strife. I'm sorry you cannot appreciate the idea that Misplaced Pages can and should, where possible, maintain its policies and guidelines so that they remain in step with practice so newer users do not become overwhelmed and confused. However, your unwillingness or inability to acknowledge this idea does not summarily mean it is a waste of time. If it can lead to fewer less-than-ideal situations arising in the future such as those that end up as arbitration cases (you know, the ones you are a candidate to help decide), then all the better. If anything, your comments so far suggest that you don't want me to give you the benefit of the doubt in the future, in which case, I've gotten your message very clearly - thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are an experienced enough editor to know that you should (1) contact me before posting to ANI so that I can give you details you might not know, and (2) notify me when posting to ANI. I stopped reading your remarks after the first sentence. Don't chide me about AGF when you are not even showing me basic courtesy. Jehochman 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- And you think you're fit to be an arbitrator with such an approach, huh? I've lost any confidence I had in you until now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please start from the beginning. Why didn't you notify me when starting that thread? Why didn't you contact me first. I've put these concerns on the table. Address them, and then we can talk about your concerns, in order. Jehochman 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat myself because you are unwilling to read the second, third and forth sentences of my response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please start from the beginning. Why didn't you notify me when starting that thread? Why didn't you contact me first. I've put these concerns on the table. Address them, and then we can talk about your concerns, in order. Jehochman 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- And you think you're fit to be an arbitrator with such an approach, huh? I've lost any confidence I had in you until now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are an experienced enough editor to know that you should (1) contact me before posting to ANI so that I can give you details you might not know, and (2) notify me when posting to ANI. I stopped reading your remarks after the first sentence. Don't chide me about AGF when you are not even showing me basic courtesy. Jehochman 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Jehochman, please assume good faith, and improve your reading and comprehension. Firstly, if I was reporting you, your name would be in big writing at the top of the thread and I would have no reluctance in presenting the pattern in which you conduct yourself - I neither need your permission nor invitation to do so, and I'm pretty sure it is common knowledge that I will not be intimidated to that effect by anyone either. Secondly, this thread was at AN and was not about somebody - it was about procedure and the best way to clarify policy, guidelines, and practice. It was at the point that the discussion seemed to suggest that it was your actions that were in question that I left you this message which also acted as a notification. Finally, the discussion that needs to reach a consensus is at Misplaced Pages:Discretionary sanctions - not a mere discussion at WP:AN. If anything, it is your actions and responses that are creating needless strife. I'm sorry you cannot appreciate the idea that Misplaced Pages can and should, where possible, maintain its policies and guidelines so that they remain in step with practice so newer users do not become overwhelmed and confused. However, your unwillingness or inability to acknowledge this idea does not summarily mean it is a waste of time. If it can lead to fewer less-than-ideal situations arising in the future such as those that end up as arbitration cases (you know, the ones you are a candidate to help decide), then all the better. If anything, your comments so far suggest that you don't want me to give you the benefit of the doubt in the future, in which case, I've gotten your message very clearly - thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello JEH. I've commented on the matter at User talk:Ncmvocalist#Sanctions that are imposed by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist: I think Jehochman is reacting like this because while you say you came here to notify him about a discussion once it started to involve him, he rightly is viewing the discussion as having involved him to begin with. You were calling into question a section of the page that he created and that only contained an entry from him. Even if the section contained listings from 3 administrators, it still would've been wise to contact them all so they could participate in a discussion that basically comes down to questioning their actions. Also, your original post here is basically telling him to do something and offering a warning as a result of that discussion, rather than simply letting him know about the discussion or asking for him to participate in it. Sorry to interject again. I'll try not to make it a habit. Equazcion (talk) 18:45, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be better on all sides if people were more proactive about bringing fellow community members into discussions and decision-making. That seems to be the problem on all sides, and it's a shame to see good contributors getting upset with each other over something that's so easy to avoid. Durova 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- When three or four administrators and a checkuser get together at WP:SPI to work out a sockpuppetry problem that is a healthy amount of input. We are instructed to go about our work with a minimum amount of fuss. If there is a concern about something I posted at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, step one is to ask me about it. Step two is to start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Editing restrictions. The people interested in that page are watching; they may miss a discussion at ]. Step three would be to solicit opinions at WP:AN if the prior two steps were insufficient. To avoid needless disagreements premature recourse to WP:ANI and WP:AN should be avoided. Jehochman 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist seems to have seen your post as an example of a larger issue, so I can understand going straight to a public discussion. In that case though he still should've notified you of it right away; perhaps beforehand would've been even less likely to cause conflict. Equazcion (talk) 20:09, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
- I'm being open by expressing a bit of annoyance, but I'm quite happy to clarify the policy issue. This is not a discretionary sanction. The Kils restriction is a serious warning with conditions to help the user avoid a block. Discretionary sanctions can be used to prohibit normal editing (e.g. banning a user from editing articles about The Troubles). The sanctions I've placed only prohibit editing that would violate policy or guidelines. There's a big difference. If that needs to be codified in policy to help everyone have a common understanding, let's do so! Jehochman 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist seems to have seen your post as an example of a larger issue, so I can understand going straight to a public discussion. In that case though he still should've notified you of it right away; perhaps beforehand would've been even less likely to cause conflict. Equazcion (talk) 20:09, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
- When three or four administrators and a checkuser get together at WP:SPI to work out a sockpuppetry problem that is a healthy amount of input. We are instructed to go about our work with a minimum amount of fuss. If there is a concern about something I posted at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, step one is to ask me about it. Step two is to start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Editing restrictions. The people interested in that page are watching; they may miss a discussion at ]. Step three would be to solicit opinions at WP:AN if the prior two steps were insufficient. To avoid needless disagreements premature recourse to WP:ANI and WP:AN should be avoided. Jehochman 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be better on all sides if people were more proactive about bringing fellow community members into discussions and decision-making. That seems to be the problem on all sides, and it's a shame to see good contributors getting upset with each other over something that's so easy to avoid. Durova 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Harassment of Hkhenson
- SoloAuditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SPA, sock of prior IPs and users at the Keith Henson article, could use a block. Possibly also could use further sock investigation? Cirt (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Kils/Restriction
Thanks for being willing to work this out. I'm glad we could come to an agreement. One more thing though, could you change the wording at the top of User:Kils/Restriction to something other than "sanction", in order to reflect the understood new meaning of the page? Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 18:51, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)
- "Sanction" is a generic term that can mean a block, an admonishment, an editing restriction. I think we should not pick nits. Perfect is the enemy of good, and all that. Kils is satisfied with the result, as are the editors who filed the complaint and reviewed the sock puppetry case. The dispute at WP:AN was premature and overdone. Let's leave things as they are, and instead retire to the policy pages and see if we can clarify matters to help avoid future misunderstandings. Jehochman 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't do X or you will be blocked
(You recently wrote that in an AN thread) You may also be interested in WP:TALK guidelines, which seem to have a rather to broad prohibition on threats. I've recently added a caveat, but probably more tweaking is needed as there's no obvious distinction between a threat and a warning of that kind (not if using the dictionary meaning of the words). Pcap ping 05:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- A certain amount of context and common sense is required to interpret The Rules of Misplaced Pages. We ought to avoid getting too detailed in the explanations because no matter how much we specify, those who lack social skills can try to lawyer The Rules to their advantage. Indeed, the more complex The Rules, the more opportunities for remonstration. Such gauche behavior typically results in shunning, a befitting outcome. Thus, it is simpler to keep The Rules concise, and let social pressure do the rest. Jehochman 14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Riding by on my white horse (ponderin' that musical :-) thought I'd wish you the best of luck in the countin' ... and mention something I think you may have said something about yourself recently ... for instance a (time-wasting) barfight at ANI ... caused by one of those critters who hang around saloons stirring up crap and drawin' it out. You might recognize one of the names in that blue-locked result ... begins with a P. Not, me, the other one. LoL Cheers, pardner. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- PS, Here's the sonnetized excutive summary. (Pretty cool timing, added it just before the lock. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Proofreader77, you WP:WIN. Sorry, Jehochman, that this troll followed my contribs to your talk page on a completely unrelated matter. Pcap ping 09:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- PS, Here's the sonnetized excutive summary. (Pretty cool timing, added it just before the lock. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Riding by on my white horse (ponderin' that musical :-) thought I'd wish you the best of luck in the countin' ... and mention something I think you may have said something about yourself recently ... for instance a (time-wasting) barfight at ANI ... caused by one of those critters who hang around saloons stirring up crap and drawin' it out. You might recognize one of the names in that blue-locked result ... begins with a P. Not, me, the other one. LoL Cheers, pardner. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist
What do you think about this? Ncmvocalist reverted it without responding. —Finell 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- An editor can remove anything from their talk page, except perhaps a block notice in place while they are appealing the block. His removal of the warning solidly confirms that he saw it and can be held accountable for subsequent actions that violate the warning. Jehochman 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't clear. The question I intended to ask was, What do you think about Ncmvocalist editing the administrator-only Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist section, by adding the word "not" and thereby reversing the meaning of what John Vandenberg decided, as I described here? I only mentioned Ncmvocalist's failure to respond or explain as an added touch of rudeness, or hubris. But my question is about what he did at Arb Enf.—Finell 04:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Short block if caught promptly. Otherwise, admonish and move on. In an related, but similar type of incident, Ncmvocalist was been warned not to act as if he were an ArbCom clerk. This is hardly the first time he's overstepped boundaries. Jehochman 04:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Finnell and Jonathon, unless you want to embarass yourselves further, I suggest you actually make the effort to discuss this with John Vandenberg as a first point of call without further bad faith assumptions that I won't dignify with a response. Jonathon, you've again demonstrated that you play politics instead of practising what you preach with regards to that "basic courtesy" (that which you were talking about further up on this talk page). The demands/commentary/advice by the both of you demonstrates egregiously poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)