User talk:Jehochman/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sockpuppetry case against IrishLass0128

Hi. Putting this here because I am very much unsure about where to go since the case is already closed.

My run in with IrishLass does not give me the impression that she and KellyAna is the same person. Although it is clear, from edits such as this [1] that they do know each other of wiki.

The RFCU makes the claim that the two never talk to each other, but this is not quite true; This is not quite true, they are policing each others talk pages and inform when alterations is made; [2] and [3].

The lack of overlap between editing time is striking, but is consistent with one editor having internet acces at home while the other edits from work.

My view is that WP:AGF leads us to assume meatpuppetry and not sockpuppetry. This is important because it implies that Irishlass could be acting in good faith. Taemyr (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For our purposes, there is no practical difference between meatpuppetry and sock puppetry. We cannot snorkel through the wires and see who's on the other end. If we have one person with two accounts, or two people behaving like one person, the remedy is the same. It is not acceptable for two people to tag team edit in order to gain the advantage. In any case, KellyAna has behaved badly enough to get a permanent time out, at least until she indicates a desire to change. IrishLass0128 has received the least sanction that was considered, because in my judgement I wanted to extend every possible benefit of the doubt. Jehochman Talk 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


multiple throw away sock puppets

Hi, As u have correctly identified, multiple throw away sock puppets are messing around in articles Mudaliar Sengunthar Devadasi and Gatti_Mudalis. If possible can you please semi protect all the above articles so that it is easier for genuine editors to work. Saedirof (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will protect things if they are attacked repeatedly, but not before, nor if the attacks have stopped. Jehochman Talk 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

I went to the page you recommended re disputes and have added my information to Delicious Carbuncle's request. [[4]]

I'm sorry you thought what I was saying was just an accusation. You are incorrect in saying it is unsubstantiated as its well supported by evidence, self admitted by the people in question, see Delicious Carbuncle's (talk)talk page.

I would have just appreciated your help without assuming I have any other agenda than to stop someone stalking me. That's all I can say. You cannot know what I have been through at the hands of the before mentioned people. But it is irrevelant I guess - except that it has now spilled onto wikipedia and a totally unrelated editor is being accused of being me in rather nasty circumstances.

Restawhile (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)restawhile

For the sake of transparency and to reduce political intrigues, my policy is to post cases to the community noticeboards whenever possible. There are some editors, probably not you, who shop around for friendly administrators to do their bidding. I will not participate in that sort of cabalism. Therefore, if you have a concern, please do post it to the correct place and then I or somebody else will help you. For stalking incidents, you should post to WP:ANI and make sure to include several "diffs" that show evidence of stalking. I hope this helps. Jehochman Talk 03:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for standing up for me

[5] I know it can be hard, seeing as how I'm so unpopular. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is not Iantresman socking, I would support unblocking him. Your tormentor could be another troll using this incident as cover. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You might be right. There is an entire forum of Ian Tresman allies angry at my activity at Wikipedia: [6]. Soupdragon, it turns out, is one of the names of one of the members there other than Iantresman. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Add this evidence to the open cases, then let the community handle it. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana's sock case

Jehochman, I don't quite agree with your assessment of this sockpuppet case. I find that the creation date of the users match too well with Dana creating an account to edit his own article and then creating new accounts whenever the someone asks if he is Dana. Notice how the users just stop editing when they are being asked if they are Dana, and never defend themselves, and then keep editing with the same arguments.

I know that you are a way more experienced editor than me, and that you are experienced with sock cases, but I find this case to be hurried too much. Is there some procedure to get a checkuser done by asking to other admin or to get the case reviewed by a different admin? I don't want to "admin-shop", but I don't really feel confortable with your handling of the case, and I would like another admin with checkuser privileges to look at it and confirm that it's necessary to make a checkuser.

It just looks to me like an evident case, even if I couldn't find any actual smoking gun to point it. There is also more circumstancial evidence, like Dana and those users having all of them two spaces after every end of sentence on all comments, this being something that only happens to a percentage of users of wikipedia, and that I forgot to include on the case.

I thought of sending you a private email, but since you always say that you want to talk things on the open, I'm posting here. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, much of the complaint was stale. We don't block for old offenses. The fresh material was not convincing at all. Feel free to request checkuser if you can provide the required evidence. Jehochman Talk 02:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I see your point. You are right in that the ofenses are old. Well, if Dana really used those accounts, I hope that he sees the case and decides to never do it again, in which case the intended purpose (avoiding sockpuppetry) has been fulfilled. A block now for those old actions would have been a punitive action, I should have remembered that, sorry for that. You closed the case very correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see that Enric learned something here. I wanted to alert you that FlagTheError is NOT me, and this user emailed me to say s/he got blocked indefinitely by admin East718. I sent him an email to alert him of his error and to avoid biting the newbies, and yet, this user is still blocked...and is now very discouraged. DanaUllmanTalk 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
They can file an unblock request. All new accounts appear to be single purpose. Perhaps this is an overzealous fan of yours. Perhaps if they are unblocked somebody will explain to them how Wikipedia works, so they don't get into trouble again. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Worth noting, perhaps, that Flagtheerror's first edits were posted on 18 December 2007, the same day as this[7]. Brunton (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Jehochman, Are you interested in popping by for a chat with the NTWW? All you need is a working headset, a glass of water (trust me, all the talking gets tiring :) and skype on your computer (it's free). We'd love to have a knowledgeable chap such as yourself on ;) Regards, Anthøny 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. What's the schedule? Jehochman Talk 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Great stuff! Well, we're on Skype just now, although it's just an informal chat, rather than a formal episode. You're welcome to add me (I'm agkwiki) and I'll put you through to the conference call, but otherwise, we're looking at getting together next Friday. We'd love to have you just now, though ;) Anthøny 01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I wouldnt mind talking to Jehochman myself although I am not on Skype right now. I was earlier however.--Filll (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because you abandoned us :) *stares* Anthøny 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my connection died.--Filll (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No problems ;) Anthøny 02:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairly painless

This was fairly painless! :-) BTW, do you know if the arbitrators watch the talk page. I posted this, but I can't remember whether talk pages and main pages are mixed up together in watchlists or whether they show up separately. I was thinking of asking for advice somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

When watching a page, the talk page is also watched, and they appear as separate entries. Surely they will see your comment. My comment will be seen, but remains unseen. *:o) Jehochman Talk 13:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Are you in a contrary mood today? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not at all! I am feeling rather jovial, after a trip to Dunkin Donuts and a large coffee. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
We have Dunkin Donuts here, but I guess you don't have Tesco yet? Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. We have Wild Oats, an organic market, to compensate for the hellishly good, but unhealthy fare at Dunkin Donuts. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Two birds with one stone

Hi, Jehochman. I bring something related to violation on our user naming policy and possible SSP. You're very strict to inappropriate wording or comment by editors, so I think you can clear this up. A new user named Chibalnom (talk · contribs) nominates Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies for deletion.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies

At first the article looks quite mess without reliable citations, but I know the school is a notable school for gifted students in South Korea. However, his name concerns me more that the article, because it refers to "son of bitch" in Korean and his user page also is written with "Chibal!". He seems to be very knowledgeable of all the procedure for AFD on contrary to his registered date. Not to mention, the name is a blatant violation on the user name policy but I think he is likely a sock of this non-Korean editor.[8] Since the romanization is not following the Revised Romanization, generally used method to transcribe Korean language into English here, I guess he pretends to be Korean. In addition, his eagerness toward Korean academic institutions and DAB pages, the two people could be the same person. Please look into this case, Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the nuanced meaning is more like "Fuck you, bitch", which qualifies as an invalid username. The fact that they are editing Korean articles creates a presumption that this is not an innocent happenstance. I will do something. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. :) --Appletrees (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jnelson09 and User:Sottolacqua

Hi - I saw you recently contributed to Sottolacqua's request for editor assistance. I've asked Jnelson09 to show the edit he considers vandalism, and I actually disagree with him and think that the section removed by Sottolacqua was not encyclopaedic. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this. The discussion on Jnelson09's talk page contains the bulk of the details and the edit in question is here: [9]. Many thanks, Howie ☎ 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation tool?

I see you have something about a new citation tool on your userpage. How does it work, does it add a new tab to the top of wiki pages like Twinkle, with a dropdown selection of citation templates or something? Cirt (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a Firefox add-on. When viewing a web page the you'd like to cite, right click on the page, select WPCITE, and a little window opens with the cite code. Then copy and paste into Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[1]

  1. ^ User talk:Jehochman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved on 2008-04-14.

Ha! That is really neat, thank you so much for developing this! So it works with the template {{cite web}} primarily? Cirt (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We could program additional options, but it is easy enough to tweak the output by hand if you would like a different cite template, or to add other fields. Jehochman Talk 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation tool for Wikinews?

Is there a way that a similar Citation tool could be developed like this for Wikinews? Over there the primary source template used is {{source|url=|title=|author=|pub=|date=}} - for example as used at n:3000 homeless after fire breaks out in Chad refugee camp. Only if you have a chance - I know this would really be useful at Wikinews because we rely quite heavily on online sources, and a lot of people would really appreciate it - just that we use a different form of source-template. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Transparency: ArbCom and Oversight Process

Not knowing to whom I should pose this administrative question, I thought that I would turn to you. I notice that User:PHG was blocked for one week with the "strong encouragement" that he find a mentor. I don't disagree with the suggestion (it will likely do the user some good), but I notice that "encouragement" is not exactly the same as directly ordering a user to do something.

For my own edification, what should happen if the user (or any user) simply ignored the Arbcom's "encouragement" at the end of this one-week block and proceeded to edit as if nothing had happened (a reasonable assumption based on the user's history)? In terms of administrative process, what would happen? J Readings (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If they managed to self-correct past problems, they could happily continue editing. However, if they were to repeat past mistakes, which seems likely since PHG denies having made any mistakes, the result may be a series of rapidly escalating blocks. Jehochman Talk 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. J Readings (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article Megalithic yard restored

User:Little sawyer has restored the article Megalithic yard. I think you have some information about his history and posts under a different name.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no feelings about this article. If there is some sort of abusive sock puppetry, please file a report. Regards, Jehochman Talk 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's been deleted now anyway.Doug Weller (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

Hi. I have added some comments to a recent sockpuppet report on Rafaelsfingers.

I note from your checkuser report that you did not ask for a check against Rafaelsfingers and supergreenred - maybe you should put those together with the IPs, as it may be that Sky really is in Taiwan - in which case there may still be a sockpuppetmaster in San Fransisco, where I think both Rafael and Supergreen are editing from.

As for Aho Aho, if you feel he is a sockpuppet then sky may warrant a further remedy, as the AA account has continued to edit even after Sky was originally blocked for sockpuppeting. John Smith's (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This report is a tangled mess, but I will pull it apart one thread at a time. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to be more helpful in how I've structured my comments. John Smith's (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, do you look into edit-warring? Only if you have the time there's a 3RR report on supergreenred for reverting four times in 24 hours 9 minutes. I believe that is grounds for a block. See here. John Smith's (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Controlled demo lead

Hi Jehochman, sorry about that unnecessary edit of your revert. I thought I was editing the version you had just reverted. I know it has been discussed before, but it would be good if you and others briefly state your opinon (in favour of A) here so that the consensus can be easily identified for next time. While I lean to B, I don't mind A. If consensus is for A, I'll take it upon myself to point B-ers in the direction of the poll. Best--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bsharvy_(2nd)

I am sorry, but you closed the SSP recommending WP:DE, which I am not debating. But if the community follows your recommendation it leads to ANI, which you yourself called "A place that fuels drama". Is it no advisable that parties conserned should pursue their conserns at WP:RFC/U. Igor Berger (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call

Re [10] and the rest: thanks. It will help a lot; indeed it already has William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad call

Per the evidence on this page, it is an implausible coincidence for these three accounts, supporting each other and the same idiosyncratic point of view, to be located in such a narrow geographic region while editing the same narrow set of articles. If hat's the crucial point leading to an indefblock of Giovanni33, I must say that leaving out the crucial fact that the "idiosyncratic POV" is US=massive terrorist ringleader, the "narrow set of articles"=those articles which imply the US is a massive terrorist ringleader and the "narrow geographical area is San Francisco!! does strengthen your argument a bit. Put it in, and your argument fails, I'm afraid. Not that I am particularly upset if Giovanni has gone, but if you think that every IP/ account in future (or in the past!) editing with that POV from Northern California is a sockpuppet of G33, we are going to see a hell of a lot of false positives. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Please point out a few of these false positives. I spent many hours scouring the data. Show me anything to indicate that these accounts are in any way distinguishable from one another. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you're the blocker, you do that, why don't you?
I merely read your rationale and pointed out one enormous bloody hole in it. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That's my point. I looked for false positives or any feature that would distinguish these accounts, and there was none to be found. The unpleasant situation is that we had a user with a history of exactly this sort of problem with a set of circumstances, reported by users in good standing, that exactly matched sock puppetry. I had to make a difficult judgment call per all the available information, and the conclusion was a finding of sock puppetry. I have invited checkusers, and others, to review the report. Everything is available for inspection and comment. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Everything except any actual evidence. As I point out again, you haven't demonstrated anything except that we have a bunch of accounts from San Francisco who edit a particular set of articles with a POV that is hardly unusual or rare in that geographical area. I hope you realise that some similarities in editing should ideally be presented. If you spent a few hours examining this already, it shouldn't be too much extra work. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no rush, of course; if you feel unwilling to plod through it again I'll just post it at AN and see if anyone is willing to review it. The SPA blocks are no problem, but the long-term account needed more rationale than was provided. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Three administrators have endorsed the block. You are the lone opposition. See below, as well as the SSP report talk page and the unblock denial on the user's talk page. Jehochman Talk 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately what I've seen isn't helpful. WMC talks about the SPA block. The unblock request on the user's talkpage is extremely disturbing; there's no examination of your rationale at all, only an assumption its correct. That's not good procedure. And the SSP talkpage... well, I've asked Krimpet to weigh in again. The point remains, this block has been made on the assumption that nobody else in Northern California would edit like this account on this subject, and that's a completely unjustifiable assumption. If there's something else that you saw and that I'm not seeing, please do tell me. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I like Giovanni, I would agree that he is using sockpuppets. For example, with only about 20 edits to his name, Supergreenred removes John Smiths comments from his talk page here, something which Giovanni habitually does. In the next edit John Smith notes the obvious: [11]. John Smith was Gio's opponent in the arbcom case and they have a long history. Another possibility: Gio's opponents are setting him up by creating socks that look like him. Entirely possible, and very easy to do, so there is some ambiguity. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the unblock Jehochman - that was very fair minded of you. I really doubt those were socks of Giovanni given the style of writing - and what would have been a very sloppy method of socking by a former sockpuppeter. Perhaps other admins will review the situation, but I think the evidence was too weak for an indef block (though as I said on AN/I it's easy to see why you would have come to a different conclusion and decided on the block).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The report was complex and there were actually quite a few socks involved. It seems that Giovanni33 may have been an innocent bystander who got caught in the dragnet because of his history. Jehochman Talk 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That may have been the case; you're right, the original report was very complex. Either way, I think eyes are on G33 now. Thank you for reconsidering. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please look at additional evidence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rafaelsfingers#Additional_evidence Ultramarine (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Togepi_987#Blocked

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This Barnstar is given for quick and valiant action against a vandal who has harassed many a fine editor. Kudos! Bearian (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wooo! I don't have on of these yet. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I issued him a final warning, but he didn't seem to heed it. Fully support your block, and endorse the above barnstar. If you have a "gallery" of those things, add another one from me ;) (Yes, I'm serious). Btw, don't forget the NotTheWikipediaWeekly tomorrow evening! Anthøny 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues raised by Ultramarine

Ultramarine makes some interesting points on Rafael's talk page. Wanted to let you know in case you missed them. John Smith's (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rafaelsfingers

If he is to be considered for unblocking, surely he needs to admit to his sockpuppetry and disclose all accounts/IPs/etc that he has been using. Though, as I mention above, Ultramarine feels that there is new evidence that points to Giovanni being the puppeteer, rather than Rafael (which would make Rafael a sock). John Smith's (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we unblock them and they really are socking, we will be able to watch them and gather evidence to make an indefinite block stick. Unblocking is a win-win situation. I am probably going to unblock unless they give me a reason not to. Jehochman Talk 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What if the puppetmaster decides to leave Rafael as a sleeper to start causing trouble when everyone's forgetten about this? At the very least you should insist on disclosure - otherwise it's encouraging people to abuse sockpuppets because they'll assume they won't be punished (much) for it. John Smith's (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Raphael's block log will make sure nobody forgets this incident. You'll notice that I put the SSP report link into the block log. Jehochman Talk 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So are you going to insist on disclosure? I think it's only fair. Also there's the outstanding point on Ultramarine's comments on Giovanni. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets assume good faith and focus on article content instead of negative speculations of editors, who are not being disruptive but cooperative and helpful. WP is not a place to fight battles against editors and try to get opponents blocked, or banned. Lets all give these editors a full assumption of good faith and let their actions be their judge, not their ideological opponents. Jehochman has shown integrity and qualities of impartiality with regard to his good faith blocks and unblocks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni, you can't use good faith to avoid potential restrictions - otherwise no one would ever get blocked. If you really are using sockpuppets again then that would lead to an auto-ban. John Smith's (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Iantresman

I'd like to ask your advice, because I think you're familiar with procedures related to sockpuppets. I'm inclined to remove a suspected sockpuppet template from User:Iantresman's userpage. The suspected sockpuppet reports (first , second) didn't find conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry. The template was placed on the user page on April 10, around the time of filing the second suspected sockpuppet report, by ScienceApologist. I proposed on Iantresman's talk page removing the sockpuppet template and no one has objected. Would I be violating any policy or usual procedure if I were to delete the template? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the tag should stay. One of the suspected socks was IDed by checkuser previously. I have removed a few of the suspects that have not been supported by evidence. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Among those suspected sockpuppets of Iantresman is Applecola. If there is no need for my "An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Iantresman" tag, then why is he blocked indefinitely as an Iantresman sockpuppet? Seems inconsistent. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Grrr. This is why I dislike private Checkuser requests. Things should be in the open so we can link to them. That way the admin who wanders into a situation six months later can actually figure out what happened! Jehochman Talk 03:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Oh. I was going to say, if the tag stays, then could there be a link to the evidence? But I don't understand about the private checkuser request. Couldn't there at least be a link to a statement that there was a private checkuser request? The sockpuppet reports are rather confusing -- they don't clearly sum up the conclusions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser for Applecola was ruled unnecessary because Raul654 had blocked him in the meantime. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman Art LaPella (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh -- do you know which suspected sock was IDed by checkuser? not Applecola, I gather. If you still oppose removing the template from User:Iantresman, Jehochman, would you please fix it to have a link to the evidence and a link to a list of suspected sockpuppets for which there is some evidence? As it is at the moment it's rather confusing. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Tsyko. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop. I don't know why Coppertwig linked Jehochman's removal of the tag from User talk:Applecola. That was only because it duplicated the tag at User:Applecola, which he has now restored. However, my previous comment agrees that CheckUser wasn't used on Applecola, to my knowledge. Both Applecola and Tsyko remain blocked as sockpuppets to evade a ban, which seems inconsistent with Coppertwig's assertion [12] that Iantresman has done nothing wrong. Art LaPella (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tsyko (talk · contribs) was a obvious sleeper sock who appeared at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist with a grudge against ScienceApologist. I made an on-wiki request at the RfArb workshop to checkuser the account against Iantresman, since it seemed pretty obvious, but the request languished. Ultimately I asked Raul654 to look at it, since socks of banned users who disrupt ArbCom cases are A Bad Thing. Raul654 confirmed that Iantresman==Tsyko (though proxying for a banned user didn't stop Martinphi from reinserting Ian's "evidence", but that's another story).

Anyhow, I requested the checkuser. Tsyko is a sockpuppet used by Iantresman to evade his ban and carry on his grudge against ScienceApologist in an ArbCom case. The sockpuppetry was confirmed by Raul654 via checkuser. Any impression that Iantresman "has done nothing wrong" is an incorrect one. MastCell Talk 03:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether there's a misunderstanding. On what do you base the statement that there was a checkuser performed on Tsyko? Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman says that no checkuser was performed because Tsyko had already been blocked. By the way, the reason I posted the link to Jehochman removing the Applecola sockpuppet template was that the edit summary said "no evidence". I don't understand how or why Art LaPella posted a message above at 03:24 stating that Jehochman had restored the template, when Jehochman didn't restore the template until 03:57, but maybe that's not important. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm also wondering whether anyone has specific information as to why Iantresman was indefinitely banned in the first place. I'm looking for something useful: specific enough that the user has the option of changing his behaviour in future. Just saying that there was "disruption", for example, is not much use IMO because it gives little or no information on what the user would have to do differently. It has to be described in objective terms so it can be understood by people who might not (at first) consider such behaviour to be problematic. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Socking while banned is reason enough to keep the ban in effect until the user identifies all the accounts they have used and vows to stop socking. I suggest you stop acting as an advocate in multiple venues, and let Iantresman speak for themselves. This conversation on my talk page is over. I had nothing to do with the original ban. Please address your concerns to ArbCom. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)well, I answered on Copper's talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

Thanks for offering to help. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but any good directions would be much appreciated. To sum up my concerns:

I've been working on the Criticisms of capitalism page. Understanding that it's a contentious issue, but with some knowledge to (hopefully) share, I arrived at the page and found it to be in complete shambles. The text was incoherent, point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint arguments with shotgun facts/opinions thrown around. Looking at the talk page it was obvious that a long dipsute in early-2007 either scared away or disheartened a number of editors and now there was one editor left (User:Ultramarine). In any case, I set about to (essentially) rewrite the article, taking special care to cite all of my entries. In order to keep the article non-contentious, my idea was to give historical background, focusing on critics who have been the most influential and working towards the modern day. I didn't have some anti-corporate agenda, or plan to play up some big capitalist conspiracy, I just wanted to provide a coherent description of the subject matter with attention on history and current thought (something an encyclopedia does, right?). So I didn't think it would be a problem... UNTIL I made my first edit. Within the hour, 10 edits were made in quick succession.[13] This continued for a couple of days as I continued editing. Ultramarine's philosophy was to delete/revert first and ask questions later -- not very inviting for someone relatively new to the Wikipedia project. A number of nitpitcky arguments arrived on the talk page that were borderline asinine. Fortunately, I have thick skin so I stuck around. But the constant (I can't think of a better word) harrassment wore thin and I took a break from the article for a couple of weeks. I returned, Ultramarine was still at it, and I had had enough.

ANYWAYS, if you've read through that description you can see where I'm coming from. In terms of community building, Ultramarine is not (I keep using this term) "inviting". What do I do? Thanks again. Uwmad (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First, brush up by reading WP:OWN. That page may contain useful tips on how to deal with an editor who acts as if they own an article. Articles aren't owned, but sometimes people forget. Tomorrow I will look at this in greater detail. Jehochman Talk 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I read WP:OWN and it describes UM's actions perfectly. As someone mentioned on the Wikiquette page, it could also be a case of incivility and WP:OR. Also, Ultramarine believes that the page violates WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK. His/her intention is to add a counterargument to every entry on the page. There's currently a discussion on the talk page here. Let me mention that I'm not interested in edit warring and that I tend to assume good intentions. I've typically just let the counter-edits slide (usually after a drawn out dicsusion on the talk page in which I concede the fact that the discussion will lead nowhere). I've only edited a couple of pages and am fairly new to this process. I learned about Wikipedia from the newspaper and was excited at the prospect of a community-generated encyclopedia. But having seen this process first-hand, I can safely say that actions like these can be very harmful to the project; weeding out mainstream (majority) people and leaving a very polarized base. Uwmad (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Pick four articles in four completely different areas. This will help you learn about how things work and make friends. A majority of articles are peaceful and polite. Do not become disillusioned. With millions of articles, a few are bound to be duds. Jehochman Talk 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PHG

Excellent point regarding the sockpuppetry. I'm afraid I won't be able to file a report until much later this evening, though... Kafka Liz (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, PHG has developed a reputation for tendentiousness, and argumentativeness. Under ordinary circumstances, such IP socking would not be credible, but in this situation, it deserves scrutiny. I am not sure the evidence is strong enough for a block, but at minimum we can shine light on the issue and discourage future socking. Jehochman Talk 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Hey, can you take a look at Talk:9/11 and check out one user's actions. I'm on the verging of asking for a topic ban, since he's done nothing but waste everyone's time, but I need a sober second look. --Haemo (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

Re: Xiutwel's warning here, see this. Raul654 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. See WP:AE#Xiutwel. Jehochman Talk 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote my response for the Arb Committee, but because this is my first time doing this, I just noticed that they have a 1,000 word limit. Due to all of the accusations against me, my response initially was slightly over 3,000 words, though I have edited it down to around 2,000 words, though probably several hundred of these words are links and/or diffs. Does the Arb Comm have any tolerance for submissions of greater than 1,000 words? Even then, I have so much more to say. DanaUllmanTalk 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your response should be a summary of the top points, without any need for evidence. A shorter presentation will work much better for you, because people will actually read it. You should move the evidence and extra materials to your section on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence page. Jehochman Talk 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, I'm confused. I thought that my next response was on the Evidence page. My previous statement was already posted when the proposal for the Arb Comm was made. DanaUllmanTalk 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep my advice in mind for next time. You can't really edit your statement after the case opens. Jehochman Talk 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Important article needs help

I have made a start over my lunch break. So far the "Background" section as been rewritten, and appropriately referenced. The references took some time to locate, which is why the article was {{inuse}} for an hour. The rest of the article is going to be much trickier. It needs to be rebalanced towards to majority viewpoint (too much conspiracy stuff at present), and there are some structural changes that need to be made to make it more readable (tiny sections followed by huge sections at present) but the hardest thing will be locating sources. But if in doubt, unreferenced material may have to be removed. I expect this will take a few days to clean up, but perhaps some collaborative effort will speed this up somewhat! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

attempt of outing vanished user by IP

attempt [14], reverted by me[15]. Does this need oversight? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice it's an open Tor proxy, so it's probably the sockmaster going after Dana --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an oversight issue, in my opinion. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see. Can you advice on the checkuser I asked here about a a possible sock of blocked user giving evidence on the arbitration case? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Xp54321

Thanks for the heads up on that one. I thought his editing pattern was a little... unusual. Best, Gwernol 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!!!

Thank you so much!Xp54321 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Poison12346

Poison12346 is not another sockpuppet account.Like I said I'm past that.Xp54321 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Removal of external links on Code 128 and Code 39

Hi Jehochman,

Can you please tell me why you removed the external links on the Code 128 and Code 39 pages? I have reviewed the LinkSpam section of WP:EL and I can not see a reason why any of the sites in the external link could be seen as promoting their website.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingguy (talk • contribs) 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because they were put there to promote one or more businesses, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. GS1 is OK, though, because they are a notable organization and the link does not appear to be promotional. Jehochman Talk 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Miszabot

We have some problems with archiving at the talk page of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Can you help us?--Filll (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot doesn't like me so much either. Perhaps User:Misza can help. Jehochman Talk 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It just started working again [16]. It looks like it correctly archived all threads it was supposed to archive (all threads with no posts younger than 3 days). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not know why it stopped working and why it started working again. Weird.--Filll (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Be nice to the bot and it will behave. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, now, stranger things did happen before, or was it after? Hmmm… Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Strange things happen when moving faster than the speed of light. Jehochman Talk 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Supergreenred

Supergreenred (talk · contribs) is asking for an unblock. Since Rafaelsfingers was unblocked with the agreement that he would only use one account, either Supergreenred is telling the truth in not being a sock, or Rafaelsfingers needs to be re-blocked. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked them. As originally noted, the block was for sock or meat puppetry. Without technical confirmation it is hard to tell which is the case. Meat puppetry can be resolved if the editors are put on notice, which they are now, and made to understand that there will be further consequences if they resume tag team edit warring. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit to the archive

I would like to draw your attention to this edit to the archive of this discussion seems to have gone unnoticed. I would like to raise probation again, since the editor had been warned about being put on probation before. Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please check the time on this edit, and now check these .....edits. Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please alert the IP. They may not have seen the action on their main talk page. Let's give it a day or two to sink in. For now, just revert and notify them of what's happened. Do this a few times. If they continue to ignore all warnings, then they will be out of here permanently. Jehochman Talk 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me - I just noticed this. As Domer48 says, the comments I made to the SSP did seem to go unnoticed.. until Domer48 noticed them. My actual comments were not noticed though - only the fact that I had made them. I am apparently currently blocked for Sock Puppetry, despite there not having been sufficient dialogue - a decision which was made, by you, only yesterday - after I had attempted to address some of the accusations that have been made.
How can you have reached any kind of conclusion without having attempted to listen to the person being accused? I was not given any warning of this impending ban, and my attempt at addressing the situation and sorting it out was ignored. I'm left wondering what I was blocked for.. was it for editing an archived discussion, or was it for the allegation of Sock Puppetry?
As I said on the Setanta747 talk page, I don't understand why you haven't assumed good faith on this matter, and tried to help me, as I've obviously tried to address matters (albeit in a perhaps unconventional way). Your suggestions as to how to proceed would have been most welcome, especially given that you seem to know the system (as do some of the accusers).
Allegations of sock puppetry, gaming are wholly incorrect, while that may appear on the surface to be the case, and I am not being afforded an opportunity to address this. As you personally closed the case yesterday (ignoring the comments I had made), I'd like to request that you re-open the case for me.
Thanks in advance. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been over four days, and not so much as a reply. This is not helpful. --90.206.36.177 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Behavior & Gmail

Excuse me, but I'd like your opinion on my recent edits and behavior. I'd also appreciate it if you could give your opinion on the whole 100MB vs. 500MB thing.It would be much appreciated.(There is a rfc but I'm trying to get as many editors as possible.It has also been agreed if there is no response 100MB will be used as the new update interval.Of course if the speed at which space is added changes the interval will be adjusted per consensus.)Xp54321 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Seems fine to me. Happy editing. Jehochman Talk 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination - cleanup complete

My final diff is here [17]. If you look at the talk page, you will see that I have highlighted some issues. I am still unhappy with the "Media coverage" section but I think the major problems with the article are resolved in this edition. I pessimistically await vandalism or OR, or other policy-violating material, but I felt it was sufficient for now to remove the tags at the top. Please review and check that it is good enough compared to the incarnation you were very concerned about. (the history is quite a fun read!) Fritzpoll (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And the IPs are rolling back...[18]. I have reverted this on the basis of no discussion, but I will not be able to continue to do this without violating principles such as 3RR. Some advice would be helpful! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I was only there to cleanup some ELs, but I'll add it to my watchlist again.Doug Weller (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Fritz, there are three broad types of IP editor I see: 1/ readers and newcomers who fix minor errors, 2/ editors from other Wikipedias adding inter-wiki links, and 3/ bad actors seeking to hide their identity. At this point, we need to gather evidence to see if we are dealing with a puppetmaster. I think you should get additional editors involved to help establish a consensus version of the article. If the puppetmaster keeps fighting, they will eventually provide us with enough evidence to take action against them. To get more attention, an article content request for comment is probably better than running to WP:ANI. My experience with ANI is that it is watched by many administrators, but also by many trolls. Going there in a case like this is probably going to create needless drama. If you want to poke around in the article history, you may be able to form a hypothesis about the puppetmaster's identity. Once you find evidence, we can file a report at WP:SSP or even WP:RFCU. Keep me posted. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha, they already crossed the line. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HistoricalAccuracyMatters. Jehochman Talk 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Seesm you spotted it before I could - per the new account, I will monitor IP edits and compare them to the list at checkuser, and the edit style to that of the users in question Fritzpoll (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Computermadgeek

I see you just blocked that guy, even as I was trying to give a good-faith answer of what I thought was a good-faith question about admin probation. Yet some editors accuse me of not following the WP:AGF guideline. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they are trolling, and they seem very likely to be a sock puppet, though that is not the reason for my block. A conversation with the user on their talk page is necessary to see if they are willing to contribute productively. If so, they can be unblocked. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What nonsense you admins have to deal with. All the more reason I wouldn't want to be one (and am suspicious of anyone who lobbies for the job). :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not so bad. You could pass RFA easily. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably not so easily, as I have some history of contention, which is why there were questions raised about giving me rollback authority (which, by the way, I did not ask for, it was offered by an admin). But I appreciate your vote of confidence. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
But you have not had any recent trouble. If you continue to keep clear, I think people will forgive any past matters, especially if a full year passes. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If, at some point, someone thinks I should be an admin, I would consider it. But I would not actively lobby for it. I think it's too much drudgery and not enough fun stuff. But I'm probably already in that mode now, as it is. :\ Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Name in vain

I've used your comment [19] at the arbcomm page. Thought I ought to warn you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Threatening vandal

Probably just spouting off, but I reported him [20] just in case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chris19910

I put an archive template on this because it looks like you've resolved it. I'm just double-checking with you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to open this sock case

Jehochman
Thanks for taking action on this sock case. Now that the block on user CFW is lifted could you please open this report for editing? I want to add additional supporting evidences to it, e.g., this concern. Duty2love (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't reopen reports. You can start a new one if you have new evidence. Just add "2nd" after the username when you name the page. Jehochman Talk 02:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik Moeller

While I have no strong feelings about "articleness" for this case, I believe your protection was out of process and not done according to any accepted policy or norms. There was nothing close to an edit war or three reverts. Therefore I am unprotecting the article, simply because the description you gave wasn't accurate. This does not preclude protecting it later for other reasons including a real edit war. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you. I think your unprotection was out of process and a violation of the principal that administrative actions should not be undone without discussion. If you look at the history of the page you will see many flip flops between redirection and an article within the last day. That, my friend, is edit warring. Edit warring is stopped by protection. Jehochman Talk 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, this self-revert [21] happened while I was filling out the protection template, and I did not see it. In any case, given that edit warring has not resumed, we can just leave well enough alone. Next time you have a question about my actions, do talk to me first, unless there is a true emergency. Jehochman Talk 00:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd hardly call a single anon user working on the article for 20 minutes, with one other user reverting to a redirect within those 20 minutes and another a few hours later (not counting the self-reverting IP), an edit war. Almost every article would be protected if we maintain that standard. Where were you in December/January? That's when protection actually would have made sense. Yet even though I don't agree with your reasoning, I don't mind the full protection, because I'm pretty sure any recreation of the article without using the talk page will just result in more reverts.--Atlan (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the highly controversial Valley Wag article? This is not a "normal" situation. There were three reverts back and forth. I felt no reason to wait for more. Jehochman Talk 11:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just Wanted To Say

Just wanted to say I've reached over 500 edits and am now using Twinkle and Friendly to great sucess. Just reached 600 edits.:DXp54321 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you remember User:Anacapa?

Hi Jehochman, do you remember our long lost friend User:Anacapa? Well he's back ban evading and he's using another IP User:128.111.95.38. This IP is a University of Sanata Barbara California IP, just like the majority of his other sock IPs, he's been trolling talk:feminism - pushing the same sources ('Spreading Misandry' by Nathanson and Young) and using the same uncivil rhetoric about the users who edit Feminism "you will find that clear logic is totally forbidden on this page and all others which 'gender'-as-female 'ginning' girls and girl-guys control." 'Gender-ginning' is as you will see from my old report page one of Anacapa's favorite terms. He's also made edits to Covert incest and Reproductive endocrinology and infertility[22] - in both cases these have been reverted. I've contacted the good faith user who replied to Anacapa on Talk:Feminism and I'll like your advice on whether or not that convo should be removed - I assume it should be as per WP:BAN--Cailil talk 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I missed the fact that he also used IP 128.111.95.171 to comment to Talk:feminism. This IP is one that he has previously used and which was previously blocked as an Anacapa sock. The areas of interest are a match here too: Talk:Feminism, Shunning, Talk:Shunning‎, Mennonite and Talk:Antifeminism. And from a quick look at the history of Shunning it seems he's been using IP 128.111.97.148 too. These IPs have made new edits to these pages since May 2 2008 - I've reverted his main-space edits but I've left the talk-space comments for the moment--Cailil talk 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh in case there was any doubt that he's back IP 128.111.95.110 (yet another Univeristy of Santa Barbara California IP - previously blocked as an Anacapa sock) makes reference to how great the banned user (ref to Anacapa) was at Talk:shunninghere - this was back on March 3rd 2008--Cailil talk 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a chat with User:Alison (Checkuser) about this? Ask specifically for her to look at how many unrelated users are in this range, and if there would not be too much collateral damage, could we have a range block please. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Will do, and thanks for the quick reply--Cailil talk 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Just left a note to Alison. Should I go ahead and remove the obvious Anacapa comments from talk pages or should I leave them?--Cailil talk 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You can take them out with an edit summary like "Remove thread started by banned user". Jehochman Talk 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No reply from Alison would you mind dropping her a word on the matter? My wording might be confusing--Cailil talk 18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you still an editor watching disruptions on Chiropractor?

If you are then would you please check into this before it gets way out of hand? [23] and [24]. I don't edit this article but I pop in and watch to see how things are going, which at this time the heat is rising unfortunatly. I don't know enough about chiropractor's to join in and I am trying to understand chiropractor more myself for personal reasons, which is why I watch it. I thought maybe you would be able to slow things down and restore WP:Civil, which I understand is hard to do on this page. I hope I am bringing this to the right editor, if not, my apologies. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore, someone took care of it, sorry for the inconvenience. [25] --CrohnieGalTalk 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The editor was blocked for 3RR violation and not the disruption on the talk page. QuackGuru 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, where is the best place to report this.[26][27] This has been going on for quite sometime now. QuackGuru 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems like mediation might help get the parties talking and working together. The articles seems well written and informative. Jehochman Talk 06:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Some parts of the article are in extremely poor shape. Entire sections are missing such as the vanished Effectiveness section. There are a bunch of obsolete studies in the article. Newer 2000 and beyond (peer-reviewed) studies are available (along with the written NPOV cited text) but some editors prefer POV 20 year old studies. QuackGuru 06:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your time, it does seem like the article is working well lately, the past few days. I think that the editors are 'talking' and doing a bit more listening to each other. As for meditation, I think that is an excellent idea. The only problem I see is that everyone has to agree to it, and I can't see all of them saying yes to mediation unfortunately. Maybe if the mediations rules were changed so that it is used by the majority who accept or reject would help utilize mediation better. Anyways, thank you for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I would request mediation anyways. The results are not binding. It's just a way to help people talk about disagreements without offending each other. Those who refuse to participate may identify themselves as disruptive influences. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Things are not working well lately in the past few days. Commenting on the talk page has not helped. QuackGuru 15:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the modified version, which QG is conveniently ignoring and showing an old diff. The diff immediately before the one he chose is worth noting, as it applied to principles in general, and was hopefully to be read by him so he'd learn something. He obviously didn't. His insistence on solo, bold editing that ignores consensus is quite disruptive in controversial articles. -- Fyslee / talk 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik Article

Protection was probably a decent thing to do, but going to arbitration is not procedure. Lock it, tell them to talk it out, unlock it, repeat rinse lather. :) Let the wiki process work a bit first, keep an eye on it, but don't go to arbcom that's supposed to be a last resort. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thank you for these kind words. Jehochman Talk 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Status Report

Subject: Mr. Xp54321's progress since last report. Date:5/9/08 6:05 PM PST Progress:

  • Mr. Xp has been adopted by Mr. Excirial
  • Mr. Xp has reached over 900 edits
  • Mr. Xp has not gotten into any trouble
  • Mr. Xp has learned to add userboxes
  • Mr. Xp has learned how to archive pages
  • Mr. Xp has reported multiple vandals on the appropriate pages
  • Mr. XP has put in multiple RFPPs some of which were granted
  • Mr. Xp has successfully achieved a peak EDP(Edits Per Day) of 200
  • Mr. XP has received a barnstar
  • Mr. Xp has successfully achieved a daily average of over 100 edits
  • Mr. Xp has achieved much and looks forward to a great time on Wikipedia

Signed: Xp54321 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Jehochman Talk 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Signed: Xp54321 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rocketboom

You helped with the COI on the Rocketboom page a while back. The owner of the site recently created an account and is clearly unhappy with Wikipedia as a whole. Please have a peek at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Rocketboom and the affected pages. Thanks! -Cleanr (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on the user's talk page, and on that thread. Thanks for the heads up. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with biases

Hi I got your message. I am not sure what to do. I have reported this Troll personally to Jimmy Wales and he said that he would have some experts look into it.

I never heard back but my perosanl page has been deleted and the troll Cleanr has been rediting the Rocketboom page.

Cleanr is annomonus and has made all negitive edits that I dont think are valid.

Will you please try to justify Cleanr for me? No one has been able to.

Also will you please try to explain why my edits are not valid? No one has been able to.

Thanks, just trying to get some help because right now, its just me and Cleanr.

I only respond to his negitive deletes and alterations.

Thanks for you help, its very frusterating because as you can imagine, its very likely that there would be a personal that would try to edit this article negitively, so why wont anyone look further into Cleanrs edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbaron (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Long overdue, but..

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For that amazing tool I use every day, the Wikipedia Cite tool, I hereby award you the Brilliant Idea Barnstar.Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Realised I still hadn't come to thank you for making my editing so much easier with the invention of this tool. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehochman Talk 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Anacapa

Further stuff from Anacapa[28]. Anything we can do?--Cailil talk 10:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC) PS we probably should delete or semi-protect User:Cailil/Complex vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles - I'll take your advice on which to do. But in light of the fact that Anacapa is back we may need it again--Cailil talk 11:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page and blocked the IP. Can you give me a list of IPs used by Anacapa? I'll set up a soft rangeblock. That should stop him without too much collateral damage. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the list of current IPs being used:

This is the one you just blocked

  • 128.111.95.166

In this collapsed box are the ones from the same range but have been disused for months


Should we drop the IT dept. of UCSB (where these all originate) a line about abuse of their IPs?--Cailil talk 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a range block. Let's see if he gives up, or tries other tricks. Jehochman Talk 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Raasukutty sock of User:mudaliar

Hi Jehochman,

I'd like to bring to your notice, the edits of User:Raasukutty in the article Devadasi. I think he is a sock of User:mudaliar. Please see [29]. Can you please take care of the situation?

MarkPC (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman Talk 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, Another sock User:KenMarks of User:mudaliar is doing the reverts now. Please I think the article needs to be semi-protected. MarkPC (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also done.Jehochman Talk 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination - all seems calm

I'm quite surprised, but nothing of note seems to be happening at this article at the moment. The content disputes were minor and easily remedied on the talk page, and there is nothing but the occasional little bit of vandalism - just thought I'd let you know so that you didn't think I'd forgotten! Thinking of trying to get this up to GA soon - what do you think of it? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Jehochman Talk 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

CompScientist

I stumbled on the discussions of the term 'supercar' from the nissan gtr page and the resulting ban of user CompScientist. it seems that every request attempt to be unblocked is met with the same basic reason, regardless of the quality (if you will) of his stated request. one of the central beauties of wikipedia is that it's open to virtually everyone, preventing small groups and individuals from controlling public information. i make no judgments on his or any of his edit-warring-enemies in regards to their behavior, and am not interested in taking personal sides. Neither am i suggesting any particular action to be done. rather, i ask that you re-review the situation. the remarks left by admins seem a bit redundant, as if i could predict what the next denial will say. the variables are not important, just the idea of any heated discussions in the future to be easily resolved by perma-bans. thanks. Aceholiday (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Are you still watching over this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Never was, but how can I help? Jehochman Talk 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I now realize I mixed up Homeopathy and Chiropractic (similar deal there). See Eubulides (talk · contribs) talk page; I haven't followed the article, but it appears he's getting beaten up over there, and I know him to be a courteous, responsible, accurate and ethical editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you awful character attacker :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed ;-) The irony (and accuracy!) of his edit summary is that he deleted his own comments, which fit his own edit summary and was a massive assumption of bad faith and personal attack against you and other editors (conspiracy theories). He doesn't seem to have learned from his blocking that his accusations of others seem to fit other's perceptions of himself. If he realized that he isn't so innocent, then he might stop pointing fingers and start trying to actually create an encyclopedia that tells the whole story about chiropractic, past and present, not some updated and whitewashed version. He stated he'd delete the section after 24 hours, but did it already after 4+ hours. His claim to be a representative of other editors (actually mostly only the chiropractors) doesn't account for the fact that some other editors, myself included, generally avoid or severely limit participation on the chiropractic article and talk page because of his domination of it for some time now. The bossy, demanding, and attacking atmosphere (his way or not at all) is very oppressive. He took an excellent and stable article largely created by collaborations with Dematt (a chiropractor who deserves to be an admin), and started to recreate it into his own version of how it should look, and it's been one long series of edit wars over a very unstable article since then. Eubulides has been the only one to really dare to take him on, and he can't stand it. -- Fyslee / talk 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the nutshell version, Fyslee. I still haven't read the talk page, but since I know what kind of editor Eubulides is, I'm not surprised at what you're saying. I came to this issue simply because I saw a case of WP:DTTR on Eubulides' talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course there's always 2 sides to every story. So the games continue. Sigh. Fyslee, I can always change my mind, no? I mean, I recently got blocked on a technicality and took it like a man for a week with no request for unblocking. I found Jehochmans "warning" to be in poor taste, so I didn't want it to be there for 24 hours. And despite your insinuations, I can easily find 5 editors who severely disagree with Eubulides as well. So to dump this all on me is a very bogus move, but it shouldn't come to as a surprise that rather than bring any concerns to me, you would come to an admins page and canvass. Have you done this before, specifically for me, Fyslee? I wonder if I might have a few diffs stored. Point being, don't cast stones when you live in glass houses. Also, the simple fact is, before I came along chiropractic had about 20 citations and was of relatively poor quality. Now, I don't take credit for the majority of the changes since Jan/08 but I can make a strong argue that I was a catalyst for change. It's always difficult when dealing with "controversial" (I think there is way more hype that is being drummed up to manufacture controversy). And, lastly, Fyslee, you cannot shake off the fact that you are still run an anti-chiropractic website that essentially states the profession should be blown up. I've heard your argument that the website is being "hosted for free" and you haven't touched it for "years" but nonetheless, these types of situations make it difficult to think you've truly disavowed those views. And,
SandyGeorgia, his holiness doesn't walk on water. Eubulides is not infalliable and I can tell you that myself, User:DigitalC, User:Dematt, User:SmithBlue], User:DoctorIsIn, User:Levine2112 specifically at chiropractic have questioned the tactics used by Eubulides. Even Dematt, Fyslee, said that Eubulides has "cherry picked" the data and writes with a "negative tone". Various editors, over the past 4 months has said the same thing. I'm more direct in my assessments, but WP:SPADE comes into play. Am I suggesting that Eubulides is not a good overall contributor to the project? Heavens, no. He has done excellent work, especially in articles that likely represents his area of expertise. However, I can 100% say with utmost confidence that his collaborative skills at chiropractic leave much to be desired. Fyslee projects me as some kind of beast, but that's incorrect. Besides Eubulides, QuackGuru and Mccready (and to a limited extent Orangemarlin) I've had no problems collaborating with anyone. Fyslee, if I get rebuked by Dematt I might consider your comments above valid, but unfortunately, it seems like you're just tossing gasoline into the fire. Addendum: Here is an example of the highly partisan, non-collaborative, bossy, oppresive (what other adjectives were used?) approach that I employ. I hope you can all see my proposal for need for a criticism section at chiropractic. I hope this diff sheds some light on the reality of the situation. CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, here is an example of the highly partisan, non-collaborative, bossy, oppressive approach that you employ. Sorry to butt in Jehochman, best wishes, Jefffire (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A classic technique by skeptics is to present things out of context in hopes of discrediting their opposition. Such straw man fallacies are used regularly. Here is the whole thread in context (it's not long) so you can see the discussion and my comments in its entirety. Note: CynRN is a veterinary chiropractic skeptic who is a great example of an editor working collaboratively with her an editor who shares a differing view. Jefffire could learn a lesson or 2 from her. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A direct difference to one of your own edits is a "straw man"? Yes folks, you see what we have to deal with. Jefffire (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is my last edit on this page, but I felt I needed to clarify for Jefffire. Taking one "direct difference" and presenting out of context is a typical strategy used in straw man arguments. Yes folks, you see what we have to deal with?  ;) Over and out. PS: Jonathan, we are at mediation presently; I am deferring to User:Dematt which should make all parties happy (myself included). Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On Adding Cla68

I'm curious, has anyone ever been the subject of two concurrent WP:RFArbs at the same time? I'm not trying to cause trouble, I just worry that Cla68 already has his hands full dealing with what is already (most likely) a contentious case without having to be involved in a second one at the same time. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the subject of two arbitrations where one started the day after the other closed. By the way, I like Cla68. This case is going to merge with the other, based on the comments of the arbitrators. Folks on both sides need to let bygones be bygones and avoid antagonizing each other. Jehochman Talk 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no no, I wasn't doubting your good faith. FWIW, I heartily agree with your sentiments about his RFA last year. It's just that, for better or for worse, SV and Guy have huge cliques and undoubtedly this is going to raise the ire of many members of said cliques. And I suppose the anti-clique clique is also going to be up in arms. It would be nice if things could be resolved in an amicable way, somehow... --Dragon695 (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It is entirely possible that things can be resolved amicably. People need to drop their weapons and talk with each other about their differences of opinion instead of seeking allies to form a larger gang that can overpower the other side. Jehochman Talk 08:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider?

Jonathan, I really don't think this remark[30] is helpful. Yes, there was the usual Slim/Crum/Jay team. But there were lots of other good and constructive editors who opposed, and lumping them wholesale into a "clique" isn't appropriate. FWIW my view is that this whole mess has been blown way out of proportion. Maybe there should be some general admonishments (toward both sides) but there has been too many rancorous comments and calls for extreme action. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll note that SV was the first oppose, and her posse also opposed. A bunch of other editors snowballed onto that core. That was the intended result. Tanking somebody's RFA is a good way to produce the situation that resulted. Forming gangs in order to grab power is wrong and must be discouraged, whether the intentions are nobel, or not. Jehochman Talk 12:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that she personally requested that said RFA be extended for that exact purpose. Need we forget what happened to poor Gracenotes as well? What she did was a travesty, by extending her policy dispute into RFA for the better part of 2007, we were denied a number of highly qualified administrators who could think critically. Just because she supports your anti-ID and anti-psuedoscience crusade (a laudable goal I generally support) does not mean she gets a free pass when it comes to be disruptive in other ways. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Could I ask you to read what I actually wrote? My concern is not with your criticism of SV, but with lumping 31 editors into a "clique." I fully agree with your last sentence. And I don't think Cla68 should get a free pass either. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. I have clarified and reinforced my evidence. Jehochman Talk 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Crystal skull

Any chance of semi-protecting this article? Not surprisingly it is getting a lot of drive-by vandalism, and I think semi-protection would stop a lot of it. Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is as you say. Done. Jehochman Talk 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Xp54321

Hi, Jehochman. I noticed that you created the request for checkuser for User:Xp54321. This user seems abusing multiple accounts again. You might be interested that they created an RFA and voted to support themselves with User:Sman.grimtuesday and User:71.182.108.14. I am not familiar with submitting requests for checkuser, so I am asking you to take a look at this and submit it if you believe that this is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Run checkuser. Please. I'm actually begging you. I think some guy just wandered along and decided to vote. Not socks. I hate the past. <sigh>Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. User:Metros has started the sockpuppetry page. Cunard (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

I think we are thinking along similar lines there. You may wish to review Talk:List of massacres/Archive 5 and Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 6. I managed to propose and enforce a set of fixed criteria, the article survived AfD, and User:BrownHairedGirl closed with a rename which seems to have enforced relative peace and stability on the article since, as far as I am aware. This is an analogy and not a strict comparison, but a lot of the group dynamics are comparable. Question; if we were to centralize debate on renaming all the "terrorism" articles, where would be the best place to centralize it? --John (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We could go to the village pump or we could start an AfD proposing to split or rename the entire series of "Allegations of terrorism by" articles. We would put forward maybe two or three different naming conventions and let the participants say which they prefer and why. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. I quite liked Kendrick's suggestion that we set up a dedicated group to discuss the matter. What do you think? This group might be worth asking too. --John (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. We need to have a good, long discussion about all the subtleties of the issue. The more people get involved in talking and thinking about this, the better. Jehochman Talk 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism

All set. Help me think up a cool shortcut? WP:TERROR, WP:TERRORISM, and WP:TERRORIST are all taken. -- Kendrick7talk 01:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I know -- WP:CENTER. -- Kendrick7talk 02:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:CD/T. Jehochman Talk 03:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested

I know that you are fairly policy-oriented, and wanted to make sure that you noticed my question here.Kww (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in which you are named

Just FYI, you've been mentioned at Talk:Keith_Henson#Category:American_criminals. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Supergreenred

FYI he returned to the Allegations article and reverted three times before the page was locked - I think he's just spat on your good faith in unblocking him. John Smith's (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Add to the arbitration case evidence. Unblocking has the benefit of allowing a user to show their true colors beyond any doubt.Jehochman Talk 12:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)