This page 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. |
I don't have a huge problem with your block resulting from Giano's complaint. However, given that two admins, including yours truly, looked at the situation and decided not to block, I think it would have been courteous to give us some advance word and the opportunity for discussion, to make sure you understood what went into our decisions and made sure you were privy to all information. The time would not have mattered, the complaint was already stale. Please consider doing that in future. No reply needed unless you feel it is necessary. Thanks for your service to WP.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but I really don't want this whole thing to become any more of an issue than it already has. I had personally resolved to avoid any future interaction Giano and had returned to normal editing. Unfortunately, a recent comment [1] by him on my personal talkpage was rather provocative. I intend to delete the post rather than respond to what I percieve as a deliberate insult, but I would really, really prefer to avoid any personal contact with an editor who I now believe is attempting to provoke me. As a neutral but previously-involved third party, I'm hoping that you'll consider my position reasonable and be willing to communicate this to him so that we may all avoid any further disruption. Thanks for your time, Doc Tropics 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently opened an RFC/U on 194x. Looking back over the case, I'm not sure that I can give an example of me properly trying to resolve the dispute (failing, on the other hand...). I did link a diff of you warning 194x that his behavior was over the line: would you be willing to certify the RFC? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jonathon, as you were involved in this matter earlier on you might like to read and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of community ban: Igorberger.-- VS talk 22:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I will greatly appreciate if you would participate in the following discussion. This is a little complicated case involving important decision to be made about the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article. You have handled several complicated cases. Your comments here will be of great help with reference to this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question. Thanks for your help. Radiantenergy ( talk) 15:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I answered your questions in the reliable source noticeboard. Thanks. Radiantenergy ( talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm back to wiki for another shot at this :) I had to take a long break for family issues and navy issues and school issues. A whole lot of crap that would make a normal person explode. (Thank god i'm a nerd) Just thought I'd stop by and say hello. Undead Warrior ( talk) 09:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009
Feel free to discuss. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009
My votes are based on how well I know the person and how much I trust them to handle the most sensistive situations. I may be opposing good candidates merely because I don't know them well enough.
Feel free to discuss. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
My question goes along with Majorly's comment above. How is oversight dramatic? Most of it is behind the scenes, and it's now reversible. Lara 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've been mulling over whether or not to post here, but as you're inviting me to do so, I'm happy to. Are you looking for evidence of defusing ticking drama bombs from every candidate, or was that aimed just at Avi? -- Dweller ( talk) 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an intrest Jehochman. I walked away from that whole discussion as a waste of time and move back to editing Articles. As you probably noticed I've spent a bit of time on an Article I never edited before building it up and referencing it likewise this one here which is related. When I seen the others arrive I knew it was trouble. Rannpháirtí anaithnid Mooretwin Evertype GoodDay. Now I don't give a fig who edits it, but just coming along with silly edits is a pain. I got together about 15 books on the subject so it is going to take a bit of time, I just don't need to be getting dragged into more fruitless discussions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking for definitions of the term "traffic report", "internet traffic report", "website traffic report", "google/yahoo traffic report", or anything remotely similar to these terms in Wikipedia on the subject of SEO, and so far have only found definitions relating to automobile traffic reports. Is this relevant at all to this article? I'm a new user, but I think in relation to Search Engine Optimization, the explanation of what a traffic report is and what it measures is important when talking about SEO as well as search engine placement. The problem I've been having is that I haven't been able to find a published work or dictionary definition of what a traffic report is. I do know that there are many search engine placement companies that all use a similar definition, but I don't know if these are credible enough to cite or use as references. What I'm familiar with as far as what a traffic report actually is, is basically that it is a report that search engine placement companies use to analyze how well their clients are doing by showing how many impressions bought search phrases are getting (impressions = how many searchers are seeing the search phrase on the search engine), how many times the phrases are being clicked on, and how many conversions these clicks are turning into (conversions = how many potential clients these clicks/phrases are generating). They can also show how long searchers are staying on the sites from the phrases, depending on what the company chooses to report, and possibly even more than this, but these are just the basics as I understand them to be. Some companies also offer these reports to their clients to show that they are performing the paid for service. I guess I'm asking do you think this is relevant enough to define and explain, and if so, what sources do think would be the most reliable and useful to use? Lizzardo ( talk) 16:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
We must never cross the streams, lest we get marshmallow on ourselves. – xeno talk 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:PROT#No silver padlock shown; Talk page semi-locked, an IP has some suggestions for content on a page that is doubly-locked. – xeno talk 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well done: defusing a situation. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 is going to generate much more heat than light. Jehochman Talk 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
... I do believe that is the first time that I didn't agree with your decision. Not that my opinion is important in the least, but I did want make note of it. I suspect it will be a very rare occasion. ;) — Ched : ? 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (referencing the ANI thread closing)
Hi Jehochman as you know I'm working on the Laudabiliter article. I'm expanding the related articles as I go, expanding them if possible. One of the articles I wish to create is on the Synod of Cashel. The problem is that the Synod of Cashel keeps linking to the Laudabiliter? I don't know how to fix this and any help would be welcome. Thanks a chara, -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That's sound a chara, fixed it! It was the redirect I could not find, but thanks to your link I'm back in the game. I just hope it's not deleted before I have a chance to build it up. LOL, thanks again, -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This is to let you know that your name has been brought up at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community_sanction. Regards, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 ( talk) 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, as you requested, I have added details to the page/section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeffrey_D._Gordon. Please accept my apology for failing to include the details beforehand--I just wasn't thinking! 23:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I am impressed with the changes you've worked up to ANI reporting and am following their implementation with interest. One thing I noticed is that parties who are in dispute with an editor, but not the main parties in a conflict, are still weighing in heavily on discussions. My understanding was that the formatting was intended to make it clear who had involvement and who is an interested part (so to speak), but that aspect doesn't quite seem to working effectively yet.
I'm not sure how it can be made clear who disputants, as opposed to neutral parties, are. But I think that was part of the intent of the changes and would be very helpful if it could be accomplished. I'm sure there will still be gray areas and just because someone has a past conflict doesn't mean they are prohibited from commenting, but for long running feuds, I've noticed there can be regular teaming up.
Maybe a neutral observers commenting section? That way people would have to assert that they are actually neutral instead of just as uninvolved or NOT involved (however it works now). An "interested" parties section instead of just the "involved", or some other distinction for people who are not independent of the dispute and the disputants. Anyway, thanks again for your work. I just wanted to share my thoughts. Maybe I should have posted in the relevant discussion on the AN talk page? Feel free to move my comment there or let me know and I will do so. Enjoy your weekend.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman, I was wondering if you would consider lifting the block of Ashley Kennedy3 and just keep it as the ARBPIA topic ban. If you look at Ashley's talk page you can see that his expert level of research could be used in a number of less contentious areas that would be a great help to improving the encyclopedia. Thanks, nableezy - 16:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with your hatting if it hadn't been mentioned recently in that thread that Jclemens has opened an Obama-sanctions case over Simon Dodd's incivility. Does that change your opinion? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Following the implementations of the improved directions at ANI I was was wondering if you think the same should be done for the content noticeboard? This discussion made me think of it: Wikipedia talk:Content noticeboard#Awareness and scope. I would actually like to see some of the noticeboards be combined, but I think links in the eidt window to BLP, 3O, COI, and other boards might be nice. I'm not very technical, but I assume it could then be used on those boards (with slight modifications) like a template so that navigation of all these pages is made easier? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Have been meaning to say thank you for your recent support vote. I had noticed and respected your initial commentary and thoughts as your absolute prerogative - only to be pleasantly surprised at your change of view after you had read my nom statement and answers to questions. I saw your support as being most particularly a sign of having read and considered.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could discuss something important via email. I will appreciate your response. Radiantenergy ( talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Could you review your edit to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? I am having issues parsing the new "When modifying a comment, you can a parenthetical note pointing out the change" part [2]. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 02:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 ( talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to watch Darkohead ( talk · contribs)'s contributions - a few are ok, but a lot are problematic at best. Dougweller ( talk) 08:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I'm being accused of ban evasion, and since you are the banning administrator, I want to make it quite clear to you that the anonymous IP is absolutely not myself. The edits were simply not in relation to a matter that I actively get involved in. I have often seen an IP server number like that in the past. I haven't checked this time, but I'll bet it traces to Virginia.
I think this whole thing has gone a bit over the top. I have no intention of editing on the speed of light article. I have made my argument quite clear. The edit that I was building up to would have been abandoned as a result of the controversy over the issue that followed from the discussion. I was intending to put in a section regarding the experimental determination of electric permittivity, and how the numerical result yields the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) which Maxwell then incorporated into his electromagnetic wave theory. I taught that in my teaching days, but I'm just learning now that it has been scrapped in recent years, and that it inflames raw nerves. The ban was unnecessary because I had already stopped editing the main article. I was merely voicing my opinion that the change in the definition of the metre in 1983 had a large enough impact to warrant clarification in the article. There is no need for all these allegations of crankery and over the top topic bans. But if the topic ban remains, then so be it. I'll adhere to it. But I do not want to be accused of ban evasion every time some anonymous goes to the article. David Tombe ( talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I appreciate that I should not be disrupting any pages, and I don't intend to disrupt any pages. However, I can assure you that I was not disrupting any pages, and I would always welcome a warning if I thought that my behaviour was in any way stepping over the line. But in this particular case, I wasn't even involved on the main page in question at the time this initial thread was opened. The page had recently been protected due to an edit war that I had absolutely nothing to do with, and following the unlocking of the page, I had made no edits to it. I was however expressing the opinion on the talk page that the article should make a clear distinction between the concept of the speed of light pre-1983 and post-1983 as a consequence of the re-definition of the metre. One editor then came here and accused me of disruptive editing on that basis.
Anyway, here is one of the diffs in which I am being accused of evasion. [3]. I can assure you that the anon in question is not myself. David Tombe ( talk) 05:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you think? Although the evidence is only circumstantial, I thought it was suspicious when one IP popped up out of nowhere to support Tombe as a propitious moment. Now it turns out from the discussion at AN/I that several other IPs have jumped in to support him in the past. Checkuser may be able to put an end to the speculation, one way or the other. A checkuser request from you would be more persuasive than one from me. Come to think of it, a checkuser request by David, to end the suspicion of him, might be more persuasive still. David, are you willing? — Finell (Talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There were some unconfirmed reports that Copperfield is an alien. I was looking for citations, but can't find a reliable one. I'll keep looking. -- AStanhope ( talk) 03:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I was just giving him a final warning at the same time you were blocking him. I'll not overturn but I think "one last warning" is where we need to be. As you think best, though. You can reply here, I'll see it. ++ Lar: t/ c 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi J, some people check their emails regularly (like me) some don't - you have mail. Viridae Talk 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Um... I can edit under my IP now. I can also create accounts (which I have not done). I am still blocked under my user name... Was this done on purpose? Drew -
75.93.119.255 (
talk) 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
If he forged a source, and is continuing to say that it is a real source, that is a big problem, regardless of where it was. If it is real, he should be allowed to clear that up by uploading an image proving he is correct. Prodego talk 01:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_behavior_by_User:AJackl. I brought up that you had previously warned the AJackl ( talk · contribs) for related issues, therefore you may wish to be aware of this discussion and comment. Cirt ( talk) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A chara, could you possibly run your eye over this nonsense both here and this report being put together by O Fenian here. This disruption is being played out on a number of articles. Here were have an Admin adding back in WP:OP added by a disruptive IP. They then lock an article because of the same disruption. The same disruptive IP here, and here. They already caused disruption on this article with these ones still locked here still here.
This POV edit warring IP, now know to be Cromwellian Conquest per this sock report a title supported in my opinion by both their edit warring [4] [5] [6] [7] edit summaries, talk page comments personal attacks [8] [9] [and their sectarian rants in addition to their previous edit warring all being the same edit, [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. They were allowed to disrupt the project for days.
Any help is welcome. -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Any suggestions which noticeboard would be the most applicable. WP:ANI is for me at least, very unwelcoming at the best of times, regardless of how valid the issue. -- Domer48 'fenian' 12:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, at this point: User talk:Amalthea#Request for unblock. Cheers, Amalthea 08:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
HI, I am at least aware of the reasons for his blocking now. Thanks. I personally think it is a dispute that could easily be resolved if Ashley would promise to let it rest. From what I've seen he has been a great contributor to the project in the past, contributions that are much needed, especially about places. He also has knowledge of coordinates of old villages and we need him working on these articles. Could he be given another chance? He has been blocked for four months already? I would say that if he be given another chance and then if he continues what was causing the problem again, then resume the block. I'd like to see what Ashley has to say about it... Himalayan 09:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ashley has informed me that the article in consideration which got him blocked reels off lists of atrocities by one side and mostly ignores those committed by the other side. Maybe we should open a RFC as in my view wikipedia should strive to be neutral and cover both sides completely evenly and fairly. Himalayan 09:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned an administrative warning you gave in a new AN post, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs. Cirt ( talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I regret your page ban on D Tombe, and think it is unwarranted. He has a different view from orthodoxy on several issues, but that does not mean his contributions are not useful. He has added helpful discussions of historical matters in the past, and on this page speed of light has simply sought to point out some misconceptions held by many of the editors contributing at the moment who are unable to argue points logically or by reference to sources and would rather settle matters by this sort of administrative action executed by an administrator who is perhaps not able or perhaps unwilling to delve into the details of the matter. This block should be rescinded, most especially upon the Talk page where it simply stifles discussion. Brews ohare ( talk) 04:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you are aware that Talk page discussion often takes the form of rhetoric rather than a simple exchange of opinion. Thoughts undergo evolution with back and forth eventually, but some editors are impatient with this process and would prefer to simply state their opinions and have them adopted. That, in my opinion, is the case with DVdm & Physchim62, and possibly a few others at times. They support a page ban like this to avoid the pain of reconsideration of their divine insights. Brews ohare ( talk) 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Come on now Jehochman, that was somewhat of an arbitrary judgement with respect to what constitutes a fringe theory in relation to the dispute in question. Brews has provided some very good sources that are avalible to read on-line. David Tombe ( talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, The novel ideas that you are talking about are commentaries that have appeared in a number of textbooks regarding a novel definition of the metre. David Tombe ( talk) 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Finell, I'm not involved in the debate. But I can see a problem right this very second with the existing introduction at speed of light. It states in the introduction that the speed of light is a fundamental constant. This reference here states that the numerical speed of light in the new SI units is not a fundamental constant. It's a matter of plain English. There is no scope for misinterpretation. We are all too long on the tooth for you to be trying the old argument about misinterpretation. You can see the exact quote down the first column (section 3.4). [21]. Brews and at least one other editor want to clarify this misleading piece of information in the introduction. To do so does not constitute novel ideas or crank science. David Tombe ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it acceptable that David Tombe is continuing to promote his fringe views and attack other editors as he is doing here, here, here, here, and elsewhere? Perhaps I am overly naive, but I would expect a request for an editor to stay away from one particular article might also include refraining from obsessing about that article throughout the encyclopedia. Tim Shuba ( talk) 20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews ohare has continued to beat Tobme's drum, relentlessly. He has ignored your warning. Someone else brought his conduct to AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light; your comments there would be helpful. In addition, Brews created a WP:CFORK to reflect the Tobme–ohare point of view, Speed of light (1983 definition), which was deleted. — Finell (Talk) 22:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This "fork" (actually a specialized subtopic of the main article) was deleted by myself and was introduced for very specific purposes stated at the time of its creation. Finell is making mountains out of molehills here. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Nobody is pushing any fringe views at speed of light. You clearly don't have a basic grasp of what this dispute is about, and you are simply pandering to malicious allegations. The dispute is about attempts by some to stifle debate on the implications of the 1983 definition of the metre and how this issue should be recorded in the main article. You don't even know anything about the history of the dispute. I was only involved for a very short time, not much more than two weeks. Your allegation of persistent disruption simply does not hold up. Your allegation of circular arguing is meaningless, especially considering that you don't know what the argument is about. Your allegation of assumption of bad faith is empty, considering that you are incapable of seeing the assumptions of bad faith that are inherent in the malicious allegations that you pander to so readily. I suggest that if you are going to hand out topic bans that you at least examine the facts of the case first.
It's rich of you to claim that I am trying to game the system, when in fact you have already gamed the system by sending one player off the pitch for no justifiable reason at all, and to the advantage of the other side in the dispute. David Tombe ( talk) 10:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, It doesn't worry me that Tim Shuba or Physchim62 come running to the authorities to try and get their opponents sent off. What worries me is your readiness to pander to their desires without any investigation of the facts whatsoever. Just what makes you so sure that Tim Shuba or Physchim62 are right? Your bias is not becoming of someone who holds the administrator tool. David Tombe ( talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Is that not a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? What about the assumptions of bad faith on the part of other editors that resulted in your knee-jerk reaction to impose a page ban and then a topic ban on myself? You still haven't even attempted to explain why I have been singled out, bearing in mind that I didn't even edit the main article in question for seven days before you imposed the ban. Your actions were a gross abuse of the administrator tool, and it appears that you don't even feel the need to discuss the matter. David Tombe ( talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading Proposed solution — Finell (Talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You;ve more experience there than I--how do I reopen a case from a recent archive.? I'll look here. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I am being shut out of the Sustainability article. It is almost like an over control thing with the most active editors (usually two or three people with almost identical pov) their team [23]Recently user Sunray changed a heading into a derogatory statement [24] about my article concerns. Everytime I make a comment or try to edit they call me disruptive... all comments start and finish with that accusation on the talk page, over use is a personal attack now I believe, or baiting and taunting. Granitethighs also does this, and is generally name calling and insulting [25] - You remember when I asked for help or advice on this before and they are not following what was agreed on in my opinion [26] I am a diligent and productive editor that tries to follow guidelines and am not into drama, but this is straining me because no matter how simple or direct an edit I make on the page... they delete and castigate it on the discussion page and call me disruptive for things like this??, [27]
What do you think? The team claims it is trying to F.A. the article but that was recently changed to trying to G.A. it. They have had an unfriendly closed circle editing the article in a team tandem now for over a year starting around here [28] There also is an Admin editor that comes out of the blue... never works on the article, to castigate me Ohana United... who is in the sign-up also [29] I have made a lot of edits to the article in general as to information in the past. I see nothing wrong with trying to improve the article with things like this [30] - I know they can control as in edit as a team if they like but I do believe that 3 or 4 people are negatively controlling content. Recently another editor made some of my changes, and they stuck in the Transition section. I do try to play nice with others, and this is the only article where I am being brick walled. What do you think, and any suggestions? I am going to post this on the discussion page of the article as a link. I wish there where a guideline about people with similar pov not forming teams on Wikipedia. I did do large sections in the article with sourcing and reffing previously, but it is almost impossible lately for any edits of mine to stick. skip sievert ( talk) 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I'm still waiting for you to justify the topic ban that you imposed on me. Nobody in the management has yet confirmed that your actions, which were contrary to the procedures for topic bans, were lawful. I'd be grateful if you could begin by showing me the best example of an edit that I made which in any way justified a topic ban. David Tombe ( talk) 02:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, The links that you provided give absolutely no justification for a topic ban. All they do is show a few comments from biased editors, followed by your knee-jerk reaction. I want to see a specific edit that I have made that justifies an indefinite topic ban. All I was doing was stating my opinions on the talk page at speed of light. That is hardly a basis for for an indefinite topic ban. And since when has a topic ban prevented somebody from making comments at AN/I in opposition of somebody else getting a similar unfair topic ban imposed on them? Your removal of my opposition comments at AN/I regarding Brews's topic ban is another example of your attempts to game the consensus.
I have looked at the rules and you are obliged to state your reasons for instigating this topic ban. So far you have given no reasons that stand up. Let's see the single best example of an edit that I have made on the talk page that warrants a topic ban. I'm sure that you won't be able to find one. I do not intend to let this issue drop. This is an important case in deciding whether wikipedia operates its rules and regulations even handedly. David Tombe ( talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Your bias is appalling. You didn't even deal with Brews's case in the same manner that you dealt with my case. I can only assume that your lack of ability to produce a single edit that warrants your actions means that you didn't have a reason. David Tombe ( talk) 03:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
OK Jehochman, Now I'm seeing some signs of reasonableness. The topic ban wasn't meant to last forever. Ironically, I had virtually finished making my point on the talk page when you instigated the ban. I don't want to be involved in a prolonged dispute at speed of light, but I didn't like the way everybody was ganging up against Brews on an issue on which I knew he was correct. I want to go back into the debate again and make a few points to help bring about a long term settlement of the dispute. You can see that other editors have also backed up Brews since you first instigated the topic ban on me David Tombe ( talk) 03:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
OK Thanks. What is needed is some kind of statement of position from all parties concerned in the dispute. David Tombe ( talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I'll agree to co-operate in mediation. I think that some kind of arbitrator with a physics background needs to be appointed to examine brief statements of position from the main parties in the dispute. I would like to suggest either user:Cardamon or user:David J Wilson, depending of course on their own consent, because they have both indicated an ability to understand controversial issues in physics. I suggest that when an arbitrator is appointed, that each party in the dispute submits a statement and then retires from the articles and talk pages until a verdict is reached. Questions can of course be asked regarding the verdict, but I would suggest that in the interests of goodwill that all parties should allow the arbitrators to write the article based on their own judgements of the submissions, and that all the other parties should refrain from further involvement on the pages in question for a period of six months. And in the event of any further escalation following that stage, that the page should be fully protected in the state that it was in when the arbitrators had completed it.
If such a system of mediation proves to work, it can then be used as a model for future disputes on physics articles, or indeed for other kinds of articles too. I'm not so sure however if it would work for politically sensitive articles relating to actual ongoing regional conflicts, because in those cases, there would be a much greater problem as regards agreeing on a neutral arbitrator. In the case of this particular dispute, I imagine that there will be no problem in finding a physics trained neutral arbitrator that is acceptable to the main parties in the dispute. David Tombe ( talk) 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Finell, I'm dealing with Jehochman here in relation to my own topic ban. Is it not possible for me to present a proposal for resolution to an administrator without you intervening? You have already made your views on Brews ohare clear at AN/I. Meanwhile I'm trying to negotiate a wider and more long term settlement to this issue, that won't involve any topic bans for any of the parties. I want to see the article written coherently by competent physicists who are neutral in this dispute. I have suggested two names above, and that they work out a settlement based on written submissions from the disputing parties. That will ensure an end to all the arguing. There is no point in continuing on the talk page at speed of light in the current atmosphere because it has largely degenerated into a pie throwing contest. It's time for you to move on and drop your animosity towards Brews ohare. David Tombe ( talk) 08:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I presume you left Hogbin out of the involved parties in error? Abtract ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe you omitted from the list of involved parties the following: User talk:Martin Hogbin; User talk:Dicklyon; User talk:Headbomb Brews ohare ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Thanks very much for your decision to lift the topic ban, which I assume includes the original pagebans as well. I'm most grateful for that. I'd also be much obliged if you could please remove my name from the index at the bottom of this page [32]. I hope that my suggestion for a resolution of the dispute is considered because it would let all sides of the hook without any loss of face, as well as giving them a break, and I am confident that Steve Byrnes would write a good balanced article. Of course, Steve may not want to undertake the task, in which case I'm sure that there will be other suitable editors who are knowledgeable in physics, and who have not be partisan in this dispute at speed of light. David Tombe ( talk) 08:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman
You were kind enough to step in before when Paulmagoo started using the Scottish Knights Templar Discussion page as his bulletin board [33]. Now he has published a huge and some might think inflammatory book review on the page, which should really be removed. Also it seems likely that using an anonymous IP he has been engaged in an edit war with other editors, and having been blocked for 24 hrs has changed IP. Could you take a look please?
Thanks -- Kyndinos ( talk) 21:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm informing you that I sent a letter to the Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. Regarding your Administrator rights. I requested that your Administrator rights be reviewed and removed do to misuse. I sent my letter to P.O. Box 78350, San Francisco, California. I also called them at 1.415.839.6885. I also sent a long e mail to Jimmy Wales. I expand how you are abusing your Administrator rights. I don't want to say too much on site as it will just educate you.
I highly recommend not removing this message, because Wikipedia Foundation ask me to notified you regarding this matter. If you delete this message and block me, It will show that you indeed have been misuse your Administrator rights. -- 71.105.195.182 ( talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
194x144x90x118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.
194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Take a stroll on the speed of light talk page and you'll his that he's back. Unless he's only banned from the article itself and not the talk page. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If it amuses you to know this, by this measure you garner 13.9% as much attention as Jimbo. [34] Let's take that table next to the telescreen and enjoy lunch. Durova 315 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you are aware of it, but Brews left several posts announcing that he is no longer participating in Wikipedia [36] [37] [38] [39]. I didn't originate this idea or raise it with him out of the blue, and I certainly didn't mean to pressure him. I was trying help him to make a graceful exit, since he had already decided to leave. In my first interactions with Brews in August, by which time everyone else was already fed up with him, I reached out to him and tried to help him get along better with the other editors and to understand what they were trying to explain to him. He dismissed me just as he has dismissed everyone else. — Finell (Talk) 06:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding User:Tymek, can you give me more details? I've known him on Wiki for years, and met him off Wiki once, he has always been a constructive editor. How was his account compromised? Did somebody hack it? Can this be fixed? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article 2009 flu pandemic you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:2009 flu pandemic for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you closed the ANI on Otterathome? I saw you linked to WP:DR, but I saw nothing there that indicated the length of a thread had anything to do with whether it should be closed or not. Also, the thread was currently in progress (it is an ongoing and complicated issue), and another admin, User:SarekOfVulcan, recently said that the thread "wasn't ripe for closing yet" [40] Thanks. -- Zoeydahling ( talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, any news about the status of User:Tymek's account? are you aware if checkusers have cleared him or something? It seems pretty certain from later e-mails I've got from his account that he is again himself, so I would tend to unblock him (and let the arbs deal with the rest), but I wouldn't want to do that if any checkusering or similar investigation is still ongoing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Holy cow! You're a party to that case. You can't use tools on another party to that matter. Please revert yourself immediately.
You should never revert another administrator without their agreement, or a community discussion. You're badly wrong on two counts. Just fix it quickly before somebody raises a stink.
Wow. Jehochman Talk 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You did not say anything like, "Hello, Jonathan, do you mind if I unblock this account you blocked?". It did not cross my mind that you would do that. Had you said so I'd have said "No" and suggested (1) running down a checkuser first, and (2) that I'd rather unblock myself or have the Checkuser do the unblock. It looks very bad for named parties to use tools on other named parties. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I need help with the suggestions at Talk:2009 flu pandemic/GA1. It doesn't matter whether you're motivated by sympathy or a desire to prove your wiki-fu is stronger than mine. Have at it! Jehochman Talk 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Um... "We have somebody who claimed to me that they were a hacker, but that person could have been lying. A hacker is somebody capable of dishonesty." So... You think they were lying about being a hacker, on the basis that hackers habitually engage in dishonesty? Tell me, do you dine upon the chicken or the egg first? Irma Puzzled Sysop ( talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, we generally like the one principle you've posted in the Speed of Light case. I have a request for a followup: a principle that captures and clarifies the current state of administrator-imposed topic bans.
The arbitrators have talked about this in the past, but previous cases where it's come up have been ugly for other reasons (think of the WMC-Abd case). My impression is that we generally support the practice as long as there are procedural safeguards (like appealing to ANI). Logically, since admins can block users completely, they should have the ability to block them from particular trouble areas. I think the encyclopedia would be much better off if this happened more routinely.
Therefore, I hope that you could write a principle or two about the state of admin/community topic bans. I'm thinking of a including a proposal encouraging the community to expand the practice and policy behind admin/community topic bans. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. Earlier I had a taken a source to the WP:RS board about a 'BBC documentary and Alaya Rahm trial'. It was discussed for a week by 4 independent wikipedians and in the end it was concluded that 'the 0ld BBC documentary' can either be removed as the following trial made it questionable (or) if left in the article the other secondary source 'The Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain' which covers the 'Alaya Rahm trial' must also be included.
In the conclusion the source referred by Priyanath is the 'Daily Pioneer' article.
There are some editors and other activists who don't want to follow the earlier WP:RS recommendation and took it to the WP:RS board again and did not present case / facts correctly. There was not even a mention about the 'Alaya Rahm trial' which is mainly covered in the 'The Daily Pioneer' article.
will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy ( talk) 13:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
My comment took a few minutes to compose and crossed paths with your archiving. Surprised I didn't get an edit conflict.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I known what your post at User_talk:Mattisse#Wikipedia_is_not_for_feuding refers to, but I could be wrong - as others could also be. It might be better to post specifics, preferably diffs, at User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Then we can see what Mattisse may have done and how much of that she may have done may be justifiable or not. Sorry for the obscure phrasing, but I'm just guessing at what is the issue - please clarify. -- Philcha ( talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
This messy situation would become a bit less messy, Jehochman, if you'd withdraw the asserted restriction and submit the to the community in the form of a proposal. Durova 320 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
In my evidence I point out that Piotrus has tried to present himself as an uninvolved adminstrator [42] in cases where he actually isn't. This seems especially obvious in the light of the mailing list evidence -- how can he be uninvolved in threads about his fellow team members? Since I've used your diff of warning in my evidence, I think it would be fair if you would comment personally as well. Offliner ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I've seen you on 2 occasions decide someone needs a santion and have unilaterally placed them under some sanction. Under what authority are you allowed to do this without community support? I mean no disrespect but I find it odd you are the only one I've seen issuing content bans without consensus. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 06:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Considering that I've been already desysoped, I cannot really resign, can I? I am willing to discuss whether I abused or not my admin powers with the Committee - or with anybody else who can maintain a civil and constructive attitude, acknowledge my mistakes, apologize for them and try to mend whatever harm was done (if any). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I am curious about the possible inclusion of the Search Engine Relation Chart histogram as being appropriate for "history" for this category.
http://www.bruceclay.com/serc_histogram/histogram.htm
Not that the HISTORY section can use a major "image" about the history of inter-se relationships, but this is the only real chart on the subject and is quite frankly known by everyone.
Also, why is education not a part of this page? Seems that the greatest weakness in any "emerging industry" is education, and that is where the major players do come in. Conferences, Books, classroom courses, right down to SEMPO and certification. Maybe a "SEO Education" section (separate linked Main Article?). SES, SMX, PubCon, ad:Tech, Wiley books (mine of course - April 2009) plus others, top classroom and online courses... not to be sales propaganda, but this is definitely education and education is critical to the future of SEO.
Child of Midnight, in effect, spits on the sidewalk and gets blocked. LuLu of the Lotus Eaters edit wars, violates 3RR, runs down the civility level at the Acorn page in his edit summaries (a pattern of behavior he's followed in the past, at the Barack Obama page, for instance) and none of the admins or editors commenting now at ArbCom were commenting back then. Admins coddle one side and hobble the other. It's as clear as day. Some of these diffs are the final comment on discussions. [46] [47] [48] [49]
Now, don't give me piddling wikilawyerish fine points about how no single admin is required to do everything or how different admins have different standards. The fact is that every admin could see the AN/I thread. The fact is that there is no alternate way of interpreting WP:3RR other than that LuLu violated it. The fact is that when one side was complained about, nothing happened. In a clear case. In the CoM case, less clear, admins fall all over themselves to block, without hesitation. Do you have the nerve to tell me that this doesn't look like galling hypocrisy?
I'm not asking you to take any action. I'm asking you to recognize that there is a problem here. -- Noroton ( talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
My 2c:
I hope this advice helps. Jehochman Talk 09:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I don't have a huge problem with your block resulting from Giano's complaint. However, given that two admins, including yours truly, looked at the situation and decided not to block, I think it would have been courteous to give us some advance word and the opportunity for discussion, to make sure you understood what went into our decisions and made sure you were privy to all information. The time would not have mattered, the complaint was already stale. Please consider doing that in future. No reply needed unless you feel it is necessary. Thanks for your service to WP.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but I really don't want this whole thing to become any more of an issue than it already has. I had personally resolved to avoid any future interaction Giano and had returned to normal editing. Unfortunately, a recent comment [1] by him on my personal talkpage was rather provocative. I intend to delete the post rather than respond to what I percieve as a deliberate insult, but I would really, really prefer to avoid any personal contact with an editor who I now believe is attempting to provoke me. As a neutral but previously-involved third party, I'm hoping that you'll consider my position reasonable and be willing to communicate this to him so that we may all avoid any further disruption. Thanks for your time, Doc Tropics 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently opened an RFC/U on 194x. Looking back over the case, I'm not sure that I can give an example of me properly trying to resolve the dispute (failing, on the other hand...). I did link a diff of you warning 194x that his behavior was over the line: would you be willing to certify the RFC? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jonathon, as you were involved in this matter earlier on you might like to read and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of community ban: Igorberger.-- VS talk 22:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I will greatly appreciate if you would participate in the following discussion. This is a little complicated case involving important decision to be made about the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article. You have handled several complicated cases. Your comments here will be of great help with reference to this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question. Thanks for your help. Radiantenergy ( talk) 15:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I answered your questions in the reliable source noticeboard. Thanks. Radiantenergy ( talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm back to wiki for another shot at this :) I had to take a long break for family issues and navy issues and school issues. A whole lot of crap that would make a normal person explode. (Thank god i'm a nerd) Just thought I'd stop by and say hello. Undead Warrior ( talk) 09:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009
Feel free to discuss. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009
My votes are based on how well I know the person and how much I trust them to handle the most sensistive situations. I may be opposing good candidates merely because I don't know them well enough.
Feel free to discuss. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
My question goes along with Majorly's comment above. How is oversight dramatic? Most of it is behind the scenes, and it's now reversible. Lara 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've been mulling over whether or not to post here, but as you're inviting me to do so, I'm happy to. Are you looking for evidence of defusing ticking drama bombs from every candidate, or was that aimed just at Avi? -- Dweller ( talk) 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an intrest Jehochman. I walked away from that whole discussion as a waste of time and move back to editing Articles. As you probably noticed I've spent a bit of time on an Article I never edited before building it up and referencing it likewise this one here which is related. When I seen the others arrive I knew it was trouble. Rannpháirtí anaithnid Mooretwin Evertype GoodDay. Now I don't give a fig who edits it, but just coming along with silly edits is a pain. I got together about 15 books on the subject so it is going to take a bit of time, I just don't need to be getting dragged into more fruitless discussions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking for definitions of the term "traffic report", "internet traffic report", "website traffic report", "google/yahoo traffic report", or anything remotely similar to these terms in Wikipedia on the subject of SEO, and so far have only found definitions relating to automobile traffic reports. Is this relevant at all to this article? I'm a new user, but I think in relation to Search Engine Optimization, the explanation of what a traffic report is and what it measures is important when talking about SEO as well as search engine placement. The problem I've been having is that I haven't been able to find a published work or dictionary definition of what a traffic report is. I do know that there are many search engine placement companies that all use a similar definition, but I don't know if these are credible enough to cite or use as references. What I'm familiar with as far as what a traffic report actually is, is basically that it is a report that search engine placement companies use to analyze how well their clients are doing by showing how many impressions bought search phrases are getting (impressions = how many searchers are seeing the search phrase on the search engine), how many times the phrases are being clicked on, and how many conversions these clicks are turning into (conversions = how many potential clients these clicks/phrases are generating). They can also show how long searchers are staying on the sites from the phrases, depending on what the company chooses to report, and possibly even more than this, but these are just the basics as I understand them to be. Some companies also offer these reports to their clients to show that they are performing the paid for service. I guess I'm asking do you think this is relevant enough to define and explain, and if so, what sources do think would be the most reliable and useful to use? Lizzardo ( talk) 16:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
We must never cross the streams, lest we get marshmallow on ourselves. – xeno talk 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:PROT#No silver padlock shown; Talk page semi-locked, an IP has some suggestions for content on a page that is doubly-locked. – xeno talk 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well done: defusing a situation. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 is going to generate much more heat than light. Jehochman Talk 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
... I do believe that is the first time that I didn't agree with your decision. Not that my opinion is important in the least, but I did want make note of it. I suspect it will be a very rare occasion. ;) — Ched : ? 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (referencing the ANI thread closing)
Hi Jehochman as you know I'm working on the Laudabiliter article. I'm expanding the related articles as I go, expanding them if possible. One of the articles I wish to create is on the Synod of Cashel. The problem is that the Synod of Cashel keeps linking to the Laudabiliter? I don't know how to fix this and any help would be welcome. Thanks a chara, -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That's sound a chara, fixed it! It was the redirect I could not find, but thanks to your link I'm back in the game. I just hope it's not deleted before I have a chance to build it up. LOL, thanks again, -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This is to let you know that your name has been brought up at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community_sanction. Regards, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 ( talk) 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, as you requested, I have added details to the page/section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeffrey_D._Gordon. Please accept my apology for failing to include the details beforehand--I just wasn't thinking! 23:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I am impressed with the changes you've worked up to ANI reporting and am following their implementation with interest. One thing I noticed is that parties who are in dispute with an editor, but not the main parties in a conflict, are still weighing in heavily on discussions. My understanding was that the formatting was intended to make it clear who had involvement and who is an interested part (so to speak), but that aspect doesn't quite seem to working effectively yet.
I'm not sure how it can be made clear who disputants, as opposed to neutral parties, are. But I think that was part of the intent of the changes and would be very helpful if it could be accomplished. I'm sure there will still be gray areas and just because someone has a past conflict doesn't mean they are prohibited from commenting, but for long running feuds, I've noticed there can be regular teaming up.
Maybe a neutral observers commenting section? That way people would have to assert that they are actually neutral instead of just as uninvolved or NOT involved (however it works now). An "interested" parties section instead of just the "involved", or some other distinction for people who are not independent of the dispute and the disputants. Anyway, thanks again for your work. I just wanted to share my thoughts. Maybe I should have posted in the relevant discussion on the AN talk page? Feel free to move my comment there or let me know and I will do so. Enjoy your weekend.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman, I was wondering if you would consider lifting the block of Ashley Kennedy3 and just keep it as the ARBPIA topic ban. If you look at Ashley's talk page you can see that his expert level of research could be used in a number of less contentious areas that would be a great help to improving the encyclopedia. Thanks, nableezy - 16:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with your hatting if it hadn't been mentioned recently in that thread that Jclemens has opened an Obama-sanctions case over Simon Dodd's incivility. Does that change your opinion? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Following the implementations of the improved directions at ANI I was was wondering if you think the same should be done for the content noticeboard? This discussion made me think of it: Wikipedia talk:Content noticeboard#Awareness and scope. I would actually like to see some of the noticeboards be combined, but I think links in the eidt window to BLP, 3O, COI, and other boards might be nice. I'm not very technical, but I assume it could then be used on those boards (with slight modifications) like a template so that navigation of all these pages is made easier? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Have been meaning to say thank you for your recent support vote. I had noticed and respected your initial commentary and thoughts as your absolute prerogative - only to be pleasantly surprised at your change of view after you had read my nom statement and answers to questions. I saw your support as being most particularly a sign of having read and considered.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could discuss something important via email. I will appreciate your response. Radiantenergy ( talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Could you review your edit to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? I am having issues parsing the new "When modifying a comment, you can a parenthetical note pointing out the change" part [2]. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 02:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 ( talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to watch Darkohead ( talk · contribs)'s contributions - a few are ok, but a lot are problematic at best. Dougweller ( talk) 08:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I'm being accused of ban evasion, and since you are the banning administrator, I want to make it quite clear to you that the anonymous IP is absolutely not myself. The edits were simply not in relation to a matter that I actively get involved in. I have often seen an IP server number like that in the past. I haven't checked this time, but I'll bet it traces to Virginia.
I think this whole thing has gone a bit over the top. I have no intention of editing on the speed of light article. I have made my argument quite clear. The edit that I was building up to would have been abandoned as a result of the controversy over the issue that followed from the discussion. I was intending to put in a section regarding the experimental determination of electric permittivity, and how the numerical result yields the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) which Maxwell then incorporated into his electromagnetic wave theory. I taught that in my teaching days, but I'm just learning now that it has been scrapped in recent years, and that it inflames raw nerves. The ban was unnecessary because I had already stopped editing the main article. I was merely voicing my opinion that the change in the definition of the metre in 1983 had a large enough impact to warrant clarification in the article. There is no need for all these allegations of crankery and over the top topic bans. But if the topic ban remains, then so be it. I'll adhere to it. But I do not want to be accused of ban evasion every time some anonymous goes to the article. David Tombe ( talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I appreciate that I should not be disrupting any pages, and I don't intend to disrupt any pages. However, I can assure you that I was not disrupting any pages, and I would always welcome a warning if I thought that my behaviour was in any way stepping over the line. But in this particular case, I wasn't even involved on the main page in question at the time this initial thread was opened. The page had recently been protected due to an edit war that I had absolutely nothing to do with, and following the unlocking of the page, I had made no edits to it. I was however expressing the opinion on the talk page that the article should make a clear distinction between the concept of the speed of light pre-1983 and post-1983 as a consequence of the re-definition of the metre. One editor then came here and accused me of disruptive editing on that basis.
Anyway, here is one of the diffs in which I am being accused of evasion. [3]. I can assure you that the anon in question is not myself. David Tombe ( talk) 05:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you think? Although the evidence is only circumstantial, I thought it was suspicious when one IP popped up out of nowhere to support Tombe as a propitious moment. Now it turns out from the discussion at AN/I that several other IPs have jumped in to support him in the past. Checkuser may be able to put an end to the speculation, one way or the other. A checkuser request from you would be more persuasive than one from me. Come to think of it, a checkuser request by David, to end the suspicion of him, might be more persuasive still. David, are you willing? — Finell (Talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There were some unconfirmed reports that Copperfield is an alien. I was looking for citations, but can't find a reliable one. I'll keep looking. -- AStanhope ( talk) 03:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I was just giving him a final warning at the same time you were blocking him. I'll not overturn but I think "one last warning" is where we need to be. As you think best, though. You can reply here, I'll see it. ++ Lar: t/ c 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi J, some people check their emails regularly (like me) some don't - you have mail. Viridae Talk 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Um... I can edit under my IP now. I can also create accounts (which I have not done). I am still blocked under my user name... Was this done on purpose? Drew -
75.93.119.255 (
talk) 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
If he forged a source, and is continuing to say that it is a real source, that is a big problem, regardless of where it was. If it is real, he should be allowed to clear that up by uploading an image proving he is correct. Prodego talk 01:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_behavior_by_User:AJackl. I brought up that you had previously warned the AJackl ( talk · contribs) for related issues, therefore you may wish to be aware of this discussion and comment. Cirt ( talk) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A chara, could you possibly run your eye over this nonsense both here and this report being put together by O Fenian here. This disruption is being played out on a number of articles. Here were have an Admin adding back in WP:OP added by a disruptive IP. They then lock an article because of the same disruption. The same disruptive IP here, and here. They already caused disruption on this article with these ones still locked here still here.
This POV edit warring IP, now know to be Cromwellian Conquest per this sock report a title supported in my opinion by both their edit warring [4] [5] [6] [7] edit summaries, talk page comments personal attacks [8] [9] [and their sectarian rants in addition to their previous edit warring all being the same edit, [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. They were allowed to disrupt the project for days.
Any help is welcome. -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Any suggestions which noticeboard would be the most applicable. WP:ANI is for me at least, very unwelcoming at the best of times, regardless of how valid the issue. -- Domer48 'fenian' 12:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, at this point: User talk:Amalthea#Request for unblock. Cheers, Amalthea 08:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
HI, I am at least aware of the reasons for his blocking now. Thanks. I personally think it is a dispute that could easily be resolved if Ashley would promise to let it rest. From what I've seen he has been a great contributor to the project in the past, contributions that are much needed, especially about places. He also has knowledge of coordinates of old villages and we need him working on these articles. Could he be given another chance? He has been blocked for four months already? I would say that if he be given another chance and then if he continues what was causing the problem again, then resume the block. I'd like to see what Ashley has to say about it... Himalayan 09:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ashley has informed me that the article in consideration which got him blocked reels off lists of atrocities by one side and mostly ignores those committed by the other side. Maybe we should open a RFC as in my view wikipedia should strive to be neutral and cover both sides completely evenly and fairly. Himalayan 09:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned an administrative warning you gave in a new AN post, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs. Cirt ( talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I regret your page ban on D Tombe, and think it is unwarranted. He has a different view from orthodoxy on several issues, but that does not mean his contributions are not useful. He has added helpful discussions of historical matters in the past, and on this page speed of light has simply sought to point out some misconceptions held by many of the editors contributing at the moment who are unable to argue points logically or by reference to sources and would rather settle matters by this sort of administrative action executed by an administrator who is perhaps not able or perhaps unwilling to delve into the details of the matter. This block should be rescinded, most especially upon the Talk page where it simply stifles discussion. Brews ohare ( talk) 04:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you are aware that Talk page discussion often takes the form of rhetoric rather than a simple exchange of opinion. Thoughts undergo evolution with back and forth eventually, but some editors are impatient with this process and would prefer to simply state their opinions and have them adopted. That, in my opinion, is the case with DVdm & Physchim62, and possibly a few others at times. They support a page ban like this to avoid the pain of reconsideration of their divine insights. Brews ohare ( talk) 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Come on now Jehochman, that was somewhat of an arbitrary judgement with respect to what constitutes a fringe theory in relation to the dispute in question. Brews has provided some very good sources that are avalible to read on-line. David Tombe ( talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, The novel ideas that you are talking about are commentaries that have appeared in a number of textbooks regarding a novel definition of the metre. David Tombe ( talk) 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Finell, I'm not involved in the debate. But I can see a problem right this very second with the existing introduction at speed of light. It states in the introduction that the speed of light is a fundamental constant. This reference here states that the numerical speed of light in the new SI units is not a fundamental constant. It's a matter of plain English. There is no scope for misinterpretation. We are all too long on the tooth for you to be trying the old argument about misinterpretation. You can see the exact quote down the first column (section 3.4). [21]. Brews and at least one other editor want to clarify this misleading piece of information in the introduction. To do so does not constitute novel ideas or crank science. David Tombe ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it acceptable that David Tombe is continuing to promote his fringe views and attack other editors as he is doing here, here, here, here, and elsewhere? Perhaps I am overly naive, but I would expect a request for an editor to stay away from one particular article might also include refraining from obsessing about that article throughout the encyclopedia. Tim Shuba ( talk) 20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews ohare has continued to beat Tobme's drum, relentlessly. He has ignored your warning. Someone else brought his conduct to AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light; your comments there would be helpful. In addition, Brews created a WP:CFORK to reflect the Tobme–ohare point of view, Speed of light (1983 definition), which was deleted. — Finell (Talk) 22:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This "fork" (actually a specialized subtopic of the main article) was deleted by myself and was introduced for very specific purposes stated at the time of its creation. Finell is making mountains out of molehills here. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Nobody is pushing any fringe views at speed of light. You clearly don't have a basic grasp of what this dispute is about, and you are simply pandering to malicious allegations. The dispute is about attempts by some to stifle debate on the implications of the 1983 definition of the metre and how this issue should be recorded in the main article. You don't even know anything about the history of the dispute. I was only involved for a very short time, not much more than two weeks. Your allegation of persistent disruption simply does not hold up. Your allegation of circular arguing is meaningless, especially considering that you don't know what the argument is about. Your allegation of assumption of bad faith is empty, considering that you are incapable of seeing the assumptions of bad faith that are inherent in the malicious allegations that you pander to so readily. I suggest that if you are going to hand out topic bans that you at least examine the facts of the case first.
It's rich of you to claim that I am trying to game the system, when in fact you have already gamed the system by sending one player off the pitch for no justifiable reason at all, and to the advantage of the other side in the dispute. David Tombe ( talk) 10:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, It doesn't worry me that Tim Shuba or Physchim62 come running to the authorities to try and get their opponents sent off. What worries me is your readiness to pander to their desires without any investigation of the facts whatsoever. Just what makes you so sure that Tim Shuba or Physchim62 are right? Your bias is not becoming of someone who holds the administrator tool. David Tombe ( talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Is that not a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? What about the assumptions of bad faith on the part of other editors that resulted in your knee-jerk reaction to impose a page ban and then a topic ban on myself? You still haven't even attempted to explain why I have been singled out, bearing in mind that I didn't even edit the main article in question for seven days before you imposed the ban. Your actions were a gross abuse of the administrator tool, and it appears that you don't even feel the need to discuss the matter. David Tombe ( talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading Proposed solution — Finell (Talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You;ve more experience there than I--how do I reopen a case from a recent archive.? I'll look here. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I am being shut out of the Sustainability article. It is almost like an over control thing with the most active editors (usually two or three people with almost identical pov) their team [23]Recently user Sunray changed a heading into a derogatory statement [24] about my article concerns. Everytime I make a comment or try to edit they call me disruptive... all comments start and finish with that accusation on the talk page, over use is a personal attack now I believe, or baiting and taunting. Granitethighs also does this, and is generally name calling and insulting [25] - You remember when I asked for help or advice on this before and they are not following what was agreed on in my opinion [26] I am a diligent and productive editor that tries to follow guidelines and am not into drama, but this is straining me because no matter how simple or direct an edit I make on the page... they delete and castigate it on the discussion page and call me disruptive for things like this??, [27]
What do you think? The team claims it is trying to F.A. the article but that was recently changed to trying to G.A. it. They have had an unfriendly closed circle editing the article in a team tandem now for over a year starting around here [28] There also is an Admin editor that comes out of the blue... never works on the article, to castigate me Ohana United... who is in the sign-up also [29] I have made a lot of edits to the article in general as to information in the past. I see nothing wrong with trying to improve the article with things like this [30] - I know they can control as in edit as a team if they like but I do believe that 3 or 4 people are negatively controlling content. Recently another editor made some of my changes, and they stuck in the Transition section. I do try to play nice with others, and this is the only article where I am being brick walled. What do you think, and any suggestions? I am going to post this on the discussion page of the article as a link. I wish there where a guideline about people with similar pov not forming teams on Wikipedia. I did do large sections in the article with sourcing and reffing previously, but it is almost impossible lately for any edits of mine to stick. skip sievert ( talk) 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I'm still waiting for you to justify the topic ban that you imposed on me. Nobody in the management has yet confirmed that your actions, which were contrary to the procedures for topic bans, were lawful. I'd be grateful if you could begin by showing me the best example of an edit that I made which in any way justified a topic ban. David Tombe ( talk) 02:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, The links that you provided give absolutely no justification for a topic ban. All they do is show a few comments from biased editors, followed by your knee-jerk reaction. I want to see a specific edit that I have made that justifies an indefinite topic ban. All I was doing was stating my opinions on the talk page at speed of light. That is hardly a basis for for an indefinite topic ban. And since when has a topic ban prevented somebody from making comments at AN/I in opposition of somebody else getting a similar unfair topic ban imposed on them? Your removal of my opposition comments at AN/I regarding Brews's topic ban is another example of your attempts to game the consensus.
I have looked at the rules and you are obliged to state your reasons for instigating this topic ban. So far you have given no reasons that stand up. Let's see the single best example of an edit that I have made on the talk page that warrants a topic ban. I'm sure that you won't be able to find one. I do not intend to let this issue drop. This is an important case in deciding whether wikipedia operates its rules and regulations even handedly. David Tombe ( talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Your bias is appalling. You didn't even deal with Brews's case in the same manner that you dealt with my case. I can only assume that your lack of ability to produce a single edit that warrants your actions means that you didn't have a reason. David Tombe ( talk) 03:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
OK Jehochman, Now I'm seeing some signs of reasonableness. The topic ban wasn't meant to last forever. Ironically, I had virtually finished making my point on the talk page when you instigated the ban. I don't want to be involved in a prolonged dispute at speed of light, but I didn't like the way everybody was ganging up against Brews on an issue on which I knew he was correct. I want to go back into the debate again and make a few points to help bring about a long term settlement of the dispute. You can see that other editors have also backed up Brews since you first instigated the topic ban on me David Tombe ( talk) 03:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
OK Thanks. What is needed is some kind of statement of position from all parties concerned in the dispute. David Tombe ( talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I'll agree to co-operate in mediation. I think that some kind of arbitrator with a physics background needs to be appointed to examine brief statements of position from the main parties in the dispute. I would like to suggest either user:Cardamon or user:David J Wilson, depending of course on their own consent, because they have both indicated an ability to understand controversial issues in physics. I suggest that when an arbitrator is appointed, that each party in the dispute submits a statement and then retires from the articles and talk pages until a verdict is reached. Questions can of course be asked regarding the verdict, but I would suggest that in the interests of goodwill that all parties should allow the arbitrators to write the article based on their own judgements of the submissions, and that all the other parties should refrain from further involvement on the pages in question for a period of six months. And in the event of any further escalation following that stage, that the page should be fully protected in the state that it was in when the arbitrators had completed it.
If such a system of mediation proves to work, it can then be used as a model for future disputes on physics articles, or indeed for other kinds of articles too. I'm not so sure however if it would work for politically sensitive articles relating to actual ongoing regional conflicts, because in those cases, there would be a much greater problem as regards agreeing on a neutral arbitrator. In the case of this particular dispute, I imagine that there will be no problem in finding a physics trained neutral arbitrator that is acceptable to the main parties in the dispute. David Tombe ( talk) 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Finell, I'm dealing with Jehochman here in relation to my own topic ban. Is it not possible for me to present a proposal for resolution to an administrator without you intervening? You have already made your views on Brews ohare clear at AN/I. Meanwhile I'm trying to negotiate a wider and more long term settlement to this issue, that won't involve any topic bans for any of the parties. I want to see the article written coherently by competent physicists who are neutral in this dispute. I have suggested two names above, and that they work out a settlement based on written submissions from the disputing parties. That will ensure an end to all the arguing. There is no point in continuing on the talk page at speed of light in the current atmosphere because it has largely degenerated into a pie throwing contest. It's time for you to move on and drop your animosity towards Brews ohare. David Tombe ( talk) 08:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I presume you left Hogbin out of the involved parties in error? Abtract ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe you omitted from the list of involved parties the following: User talk:Martin Hogbin; User talk:Dicklyon; User talk:Headbomb Brews ohare ( talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Thanks very much for your decision to lift the topic ban, which I assume includes the original pagebans as well. I'm most grateful for that. I'd also be much obliged if you could please remove my name from the index at the bottom of this page [32]. I hope that my suggestion for a resolution of the dispute is considered because it would let all sides of the hook without any loss of face, as well as giving them a break, and I am confident that Steve Byrnes would write a good balanced article. Of course, Steve may not want to undertake the task, in which case I'm sure that there will be other suitable editors who are knowledgeable in physics, and who have not be partisan in this dispute at speed of light. David Tombe ( talk) 08:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman
You were kind enough to step in before when Paulmagoo started using the Scottish Knights Templar Discussion page as his bulletin board [33]. Now he has published a huge and some might think inflammatory book review on the page, which should really be removed. Also it seems likely that using an anonymous IP he has been engaged in an edit war with other editors, and having been blocked for 24 hrs has changed IP. Could you take a look please?
Thanks -- Kyndinos ( talk) 21:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm informing you that I sent a letter to the Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. Regarding your Administrator rights. I requested that your Administrator rights be reviewed and removed do to misuse. I sent my letter to P.O. Box 78350, San Francisco, California. I also called them at 1.415.839.6885. I also sent a long e mail to Jimmy Wales. I expand how you are abusing your Administrator rights. I don't want to say too much on site as it will just educate you.
I highly recommend not removing this message, because Wikipedia Foundation ask me to notified you regarding this matter. If you delete this message and block me, It will show that you indeed have been misuse your Administrator rights. -- 71.105.195.182 ( talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
194x144x90x118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.
194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Take a stroll on the speed of light talk page and you'll his that he's back. Unless he's only banned from the article itself and not the talk page. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If it amuses you to know this, by this measure you garner 13.9% as much attention as Jimbo. [34] Let's take that table next to the telescreen and enjoy lunch. Durova 315 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you are aware of it, but Brews left several posts announcing that he is no longer participating in Wikipedia [36] [37] [38] [39]. I didn't originate this idea or raise it with him out of the blue, and I certainly didn't mean to pressure him. I was trying help him to make a graceful exit, since he had already decided to leave. In my first interactions with Brews in August, by which time everyone else was already fed up with him, I reached out to him and tried to help him get along better with the other editors and to understand what they were trying to explain to him. He dismissed me just as he has dismissed everyone else. — Finell (Talk) 06:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding User:Tymek, can you give me more details? I've known him on Wiki for years, and met him off Wiki once, he has always been a constructive editor. How was his account compromised? Did somebody hack it? Can this be fixed? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article 2009 flu pandemic you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:2009 flu pandemic for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you closed the ANI on Otterathome? I saw you linked to WP:DR, but I saw nothing there that indicated the length of a thread had anything to do with whether it should be closed or not. Also, the thread was currently in progress (it is an ongoing and complicated issue), and another admin, User:SarekOfVulcan, recently said that the thread "wasn't ripe for closing yet" [40] Thanks. -- Zoeydahling ( talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, any news about the status of User:Tymek's account? are you aware if checkusers have cleared him or something? It seems pretty certain from later e-mails I've got from his account that he is again himself, so I would tend to unblock him (and let the arbs deal with the rest), but I wouldn't want to do that if any checkusering or similar investigation is still ongoing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Holy cow! You're a party to that case. You can't use tools on another party to that matter. Please revert yourself immediately.
You should never revert another administrator without their agreement, or a community discussion. You're badly wrong on two counts. Just fix it quickly before somebody raises a stink.
Wow. Jehochman Talk 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You did not say anything like, "Hello, Jonathan, do you mind if I unblock this account you blocked?". It did not cross my mind that you would do that. Had you said so I'd have said "No" and suggested (1) running down a checkuser first, and (2) that I'd rather unblock myself or have the Checkuser do the unblock. It looks very bad for named parties to use tools on other named parties. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I need help with the suggestions at Talk:2009 flu pandemic/GA1. It doesn't matter whether you're motivated by sympathy or a desire to prove your wiki-fu is stronger than mine. Have at it! Jehochman Talk 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Um... "We have somebody who claimed to me that they were a hacker, but that person could have been lying. A hacker is somebody capable of dishonesty." So... You think they were lying about being a hacker, on the basis that hackers habitually engage in dishonesty? Tell me, do you dine upon the chicken or the egg first? Irma Puzzled Sysop ( talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, we generally like the one principle you've posted in the Speed of Light case. I have a request for a followup: a principle that captures and clarifies the current state of administrator-imposed topic bans.
The arbitrators have talked about this in the past, but previous cases where it's come up have been ugly for other reasons (think of the WMC-Abd case). My impression is that we generally support the practice as long as there are procedural safeguards (like appealing to ANI). Logically, since admins can block users completely, they should have the ability to block them from particular trouble areas. I think the encyclopedia would be much better off if this happened more routinely.
Therefore, I hope that you could write a principle or two about the state of admin/community topic bans. I'm thinking of a including a proposal encouraging the community to expand the practice and policy behind admin/community topic bans. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. Earlier I had a taken a source to the WP:RS board about a 'BBC documentary and Alaya Rahm trial'. It was discussed for a week by 4 independent wikipedians and in the end it was concluded that 'the 0ld BBC documentary' can either be removed as the following trial made it questionable (or) if left in the article the other secondary source 'The Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain' which covers the 'Alaya Rahm trial' must also be included.
In the conclusion the source referred by Priyanath is the 'Daily Pioneer' article.
There are some editors and other activists who don't want to follow the earlier WP:RS recommendation and took it to the WP:RS board again and did not present case / facts correctly. There was not even a mention about the 'Alaya Rahm trial' which is mainly covered in the 'The Daily Pioneer' article.
will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy ( talk) 13:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
My comment took a few minutes to compose and crossed paths with your archiving. Surprised I didn't get an edit conflict.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I known what your post at User_talk:Mattisse#Wikipedia_is_not_for_feuding refers to, but I could be wrong - as others could also be. It might be better to post specifics, preferably diffs, at User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Then we can see what Mattisse may have done and how much of that she may have done may be justifiable or not. Sorry for the obscure phrasing, but I'm just guessing at what is the issue - please clarify. -- Philcha ( talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
This messy situation would become a bit less messy, Jehochman, if you'd withdraw the asserted restriction and submit the to the community in the form of a proposal. Durova 320 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
In my evidence I point out that Piotrus has tried to present himself as an uninvolved adminstrator [42] in cases where he actually isn't. This seems especially obvious in the light of the mailing list evidence -- how can he be uninvolved in threads about his fellow team members? Since I've used your diff of warning in my evidence, I think it would be fair if you would comment personally as well. Offliner ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I've seen you on 2 occasions decide someone needs a santion and have unilaterally placed them under some sanction. Under what authority are you allowed to do this without community support? I mean no disrespect but I find it odd you are the only one I've seen issuing content bans without consensus. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 06:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Considering that I've been already desysoped, I cannot really resign, can I? I am willing to discuss whether I abused or not my admin powers with the Committee - or with anybody else who can maintain a civil and constructive attitude, acknowledge my mistakes, apologize for them and try to mend whatever harm was done (if any). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I am curious about the possible inclusion of the Search Engine Relation Chart histogram as being appropriate for "history" for this category.
http://www.bruceclay.com/serc_histogram/histogram.htm
Not that the HISTORY section can use a major "image" about the history of inter-se relationships, but this is the only real chart on the subject and is quite frankly known by everyone.
Also, why is education not a part of this page? Seems that the greatest weakness in any "emerging industry" is education, and that is where the major players do come in. Conferences, Books, classroom courses, right down to SEMPO and certification. Maybe a "SEO Education" section (separate linked Main Article?). SES, SMX, PubCon, ad:Tech, Wiley books (mine of course - April 2009) plus others, top classroom and online courses... not to be sales propaganda, but this is definitely education and education is critical to the future of SEO.
Child of Midnight, in effect, spits on the sidewalk and gets blocked. LuLu of the Lotus Eaters edit wars, violates 3RR, runs down the civility level at the Acorn page in his edit summaries (a pattern of behavior he's followed in the past, at the Barack Obama page, for instance) and none of the admins or editors commenting now at ArbCom were commenting back then. Admins coddle one side and hobble the other. It's as clear as day. Some of these diffs are the final comment on discussions. [46] [47] [48] [49]
Now, don't give me piddling wikilawyerish fine points about how no single admin is required to do everything or how different admins have different standards. The fact is that every admin could see the AN/I thread. The fact is that there is no alternate way of interpreting WP:3RR other than that LuLu violated it. The fact is that when one side was complained about, nothing happened. In a clear case. In the CoM case, less clear, admins fall all over themselves to block, without hesitation. Do you have the nerve to tell me that this doesn't look like galling hypocrisy?
I'm not asking you to take any action. I'm asking you to recognize that there is a problem here. -- Noroton ( talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
My 2c:
I hope this advice helps. Jehochman Talk 09:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)