Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 30 May 2009

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please leave a new message. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

GRB FAC (part 12)

Hey mate. It seems like you've been pretty busy lately with ArbCom/SSI stuff lately, but I just wanted to let you know that I believe I've addressed all of RJHall's GRB concerns that actually relate to the content I wrote. Most of what's left now pertains to the material that you wrote. I can try to address the remaining issues if you'd like me to, but I'd be more comfortable if you took a look at them. Thanks. Also, fun stuff! Tomorrow I'm having lunch with a physics professor to discuss GRBs and/or the articles relating to them. Hopefully I should get some good info/feedback. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

9/11 ArbCom request

Hi - I read your request for amendment of the 9/11 ArbCom case as a request for help. You are a good admin; you take on a lot of challenging issues and you do good work. I don't want you to burn out - that would be a loss to the project. So I'm here to help. What can I do? I'm happy to look over WP:AE requests more actively, to watchlist relevant pages and ride herd, or to be a sounding board if you're undecided on a course of administrative action. I suggested (at WP:RfARB) identifying a go-to checkuser as an efficiency.

I understand where your concerns are coming from. I don't think that people necessarily appreciate the challenge of dealing with sockpuppetry on these topics, which may account for your less than supportive reception. Yes, admins are already empowered to deal with abusive editing. But I think your perspective is informed - as is mine - by the knowledge that sockpuppetry is a judgment call, often a very difficult one with inherent false-positive and false-negative rates. You can make the right call 99 times in a row and get a barnstar or two (if you're lucky), but make the wrong call once and if the stars align a certain way you're out on your ass. Anyone who's seen what you and I have seen would be naive not to recognize that reality hanging over our heads. That's the way the game is played here. I say that only to underscore that I understand why you asked for backup from ArbCom here.

Anyhow, you're not alone. I'm here to help you suck it up. :) Let me know how I can be of assistance. MastCell  19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The main honeypots are Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. If you watch those two pages, you'll see who's causing trouble. Thank you very much. The arbitrator comments are brilliant. If anybody gets in trouble over blocking a newbie, I fully plan to cite those diffs. Yeah, we really need a pet checkuser. My experience is that the community views checkuser as magical truth, even though  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. As long as you get a checkuser, mistaken blocks are no problem. Jehochman 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone will volunteer to be a "pet" - maybe we should use more dignified terms. After all, the more thankless and unrewarding a job, the more extravagant title must accompany it. Right, systems administrator?

I'm sure we're on the same page about the uses and limitations of checkuser - it's most usefully viewed in terms of Bayesian inference, in that it can change one's degree of belief in a hypothesis but not "prove" or "disprove" it. But people are always more comfortable with a technical, semiquantitative result than with a judgment call. It's an interesting issue in medical diagnostics: doctors will consciously or subconsciously accord more weight to a computerized scoring algorithm than to an experienced radiologist's evaluation of a film, even though the radiologist's opinion may be more accurate and the computer may be spitting out obviously counterfactual bollocks. I'm sure there's a name for this cognitive bias, but it's escaping me.

Actually, I thought checkuser would be most useful to clean out sleeper accounts, and to provide links. It might be useful to know if this is one or two users with a bunch of accounts, vs dozens of users with individual accounts who coordinate their efforts here. MastCell  22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits on WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Jehochman, I'd like to ask you for an explanation regarding your serial deletion of content from the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. I would appreciate if you could explain both the substance of your edits and your conduct, which is clearly detrimental to any constructive editing process. Unless I hear a really convincing explanation from you, this will be a case for dispute resolution. Given that you have been editing on Misplaced Pages for quite a while, I'm sure that you are not doing this by mistake. --Cs32en (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:NOR. I was cleaning original research and unverified content from the article. You're new here and you should know I've written a few featured articles, so I am well aware of what the content standards are around here. I am of a mind to request that you be topic banned from the arena as you've been a persistent source of disruption since you arrived. Misplaced Pages is not for summarizing the position of Truthers. It is for summarizing the material that reliable sources report about Truthers. There is a distinct difference between referencing a Guardian article (fine), and referencing a Truther propaganda site. Jehochman 18:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Email

Jehochman, as I posted on the request earlier today, the case will be opened later tonight. It has been delayed not through fault of the arbitrators, but because there was some confusion over who was clerking this case and other obligations I've had off-wiki. Please be patient, everything should be posted soon. Hersfold 23:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's unfortunate the people did not take NYB up on his proposal to resolve this matter. Oh well. Jehochman 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Live presentation by Richard Gage

Just in case you're interested: A live presentation by Richard Gage is starting at 7pm Pacific Daylight Time, i.e. right at the moment, on . --Cs32en (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Suck it up

Why do you bother? I think the newer Arbcom members are genuinely trying, but the old guard like Bain still think admins are scum. It will take time for them to rotate off. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're all out to instill our POV through a reign of terror. Every edit is sacred, you know. Jehochman 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Carte postale d'Amérique

Dear Gerald, I thought I simply must drop by to see how you are, still here writing your dear little pages I see. I do wish I had time to edit, but "life" is so frantic these days. Darling little Barry lent me Air Force 1 to go sight seeing over New York yesterday, you would not believe how many of the dear natives flocked to the streets to wave and salute as I passed by; it quite restores one's faith in Red Indians, or whatever it is they are descended from. Sadly, I must leave my luxurious travel method in favour of an ice-breaker and journey north to take tea with poor Mrs Palin, who has invited to me to a meet of the local moose hounds. In reality, I expect she wants to sound out my opinions and advice on child care - poor woman, it can't be easy - the way Satnav (or whatever ludicrous name it was) has behaved, but c'est la vie, what can we do? Will be in touch. Regards and Love. Yours ever Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is always a pleasure to hear from you, dear lady. Jehochman 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidental revert

It was accidental. :) I think I beat you at reverting my revert, but I've already apologised to Newyorkbrad. The line length had placed "rollback" directly over the "diff" on my watchlist for a completly different article, and I must have slipped when clicking it. A rather stupid mistake. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A user came to my talk page to ask about a closure of an AN/AE thread and if it could be annotated for clarity. I don't know how WP:AN/AE works, but it seemed reasonable enough so I did so. This was not in any way a comment as to the appropriateness of the closure (as it was my comments regarding an AN closure on an unrelated matter that prompted the editor's query). FWIW my opinion is that it's fine for an initiator to close a discussion if it is no longer necessary. hope this is ok. best, –xeno 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobots

{{bots}}/{{nobots}}. ] 13:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You may need to add |allow=MiszaBot III , but not sure... –xeno 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But, of course.

You won't block the fringe nitpickers who believe that every edit to come out of a large US university is Science Apologist. You'll just be disapointed. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not add fuel to the fire like that. Jehochman 15:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be more believable if the other side weren't busy vigorously piling it on. But, you know, I much like promises, policies that say "DON'T SAY WHERE OTHER CONTRIBUTORS WORK, JACKASS," aren't binding, right? Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I already redacted that stuff, and will happily block anybody who reposts it. Jehochman 15:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite's extreme comments aside, I noticed the AE discussion and was concerned. The edits didn't seem to be disruptive, besides the alleged block evasion, and putting that kind of attention into "block evasion" seems out of balance to me. The edits also didn't look like SA edits to me, though I'm far from an expert on this. While we block editors, and we expect them not to edit when blocked, but it's also not a big deal should it happen that a few edits, particularly not disruptive ones, sneak through, and, for other reasons, I'm inclined to believe that SA isn't block evading; checkuser can fail. Anyway, done, closed, but I wanted to comment to you. --Abd (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand we have a self serving complaint about edits that aren't very abusive. On the other hand we have an editor who's been caught block evading a couple times already. Checkusers can see more than just the IP. I have to defer to their judgment. Behavioral evidence is less reliable in my opinion. The famous User:!! block was based on behaviors, and it turned out to be completely wrong. I personally reuqest Checkuser for each sock case, unless it is blindingly obvious. After the checkuser results are declared I sometimes petition for a different finding and am sometimes successful. In this case, I agree with Lar's finding. The excuses proffered are no different from those commonly offered by all puppetmasters. Past reputation is a factor too.Jehochman 03:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

World Trade Center Conspiracy Theory

I read your article not knowing that there was a theory of dynamite in bldgs. Found your article to be informative, well-balanced, well-footnoted and excellent. Twentiethcentury Twentiethcentury (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Trouble

In the interests of keeping the wiki inferno to a dull roar, can you skip this sort of comment next time one occurs to you? Nathan 15:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Could you please not delete my comments left on friends' talk pages. Don't pick fights for no reason. Jehochman 15:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Perhaps I've misunderstood the history I've observed between you two. Nathan 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem! We occasionally pretend to be antagonists, but we are really friends. (Ooh, I wonder if User:Bishapod can come over to play this afternoon.) Jehochman 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

3rd largest contributor to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

Did you know you were the third largest contributor (438 edits) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, behind Thatcher 631 (clerk) and Rlevse 695 (clerk)? Ikip (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! And those two are well known troublemakers. Jehochman 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it was interesting :) Is thatcher a clerk too? Ikip (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher was clerk, and might be again. I am not a clerk. Jehochman 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are bumped up to number one then, past the "well known troublemakers", congats! Ikip (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 outbreak

• 2009 flu outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please undo your page move of the 2009…outbreak article, as it was an overly bold administrative move out-of-step with current and past discussions on the talk pages. --Zigger «º» 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an administrative action at all. Any editor can move a page. Feedback thus far has been strongly positive. Tell me, why would we name this article differently from 1918 flu pandemic? Jehochman 20:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I misread the log? "2009-04-28T21:20:06 Xeno (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "2009 swine flu outbreak" (expires 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) (indefinite) ‎ (please discuss any proposed renaming on talk page)" --Zigger «º» 21:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Zigger is fully correct here, I would urge you to as swift as possible to move the pages back to their predvious naming. _→AzaToth 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that protection expired (expires 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) a few hours before my move (20:26, 4 May 2009). I will invite Xeno here to comment. When I did the page move I did not see any warnings whatsoever that the page was protected. Jehochman 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

the sysop move protection was and still is indefinite, it was only the edit autoconfirm protection that expired then. _→AzaToth 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I did not think we used indefinite protection to stop move wars, and I am surprised the system did not alert me that I was moving a move-protected page. Let's wait for Xeno to comment before we do anything to further mess up the situation. I have left them a note. Jehochman 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You wont get any warnings when you are moving move-protected pages, it is pretty much assumed you should know the status of a page when you are preparing for a move. I don't think it is logical to wait for an eventual comment from Xeno, as we don't know when Xeno will be back here, so you should in the mean time move all the pages back. _→AzaToth 22:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have a life outside of Misplaced Pages and am just leaving for dinner. I am not going to do this in a rush and potentially screw it up. Feel free to put things back if you think that would be best. That page has very voluminous talk comments, and I did glance at the log and did not notice an indefinite move protection. Surely that was some sort of error, not the intention Xeno had. We don't use indefinite protection to stop edit/move wars. Jehochman 22:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there was no war, just a sequence of too many well-intentioned editors who assumed that they knew best or that everyone else agreed with them. :-) Multiple moves are disruptive in a popular current-event article with many possible names. The article itself tries to explain why forecasts cannot be made reliably, and I expect Xeno's intention was for the protection to be lifted when "things" calm down. --Zigger «º» 22:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Erm, I left the protection in place per the usual protecting high visibility targets. No fault to Jehochman for the editorial action. I believe a bold move was attemptd on Apr 28 as well and I suggested a proper move discussion be started it never did. So have at it I suppose. –xeno 23:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking through the talk page (what a mess!), there has been a move discussion, where somebody counted 16 evil votes in favor and 12 opposed. Anyhow, it can wait until a pandemic is declared and then be moved. What we call the article is not critical in the short term. Jehochman 23:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, to be honest the whole swine flu thing got to be too active for me to watch all the various pages. –xeno 12:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Wowest AE report

Hi J.,

I've left a query which is largely directed at you on the arb. enforcement report you recently filed against Wowest. Could you spare a moment to drop by?

Regards,

AGK 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fourteen points"

Hi Jehochman — Do you intend to leave the sentence that included the reference to the source that you just have deleted, or do you intend to remove that sentence from the text? Most of the content of the sentence could be sourced to the BBC Q&A, the "Fourteen points" can, of course, be used as a self-published source, because the article only reports the views of the authors of the paper, and does not treat any content from it as if it were factually true. — Regards.  Cs32en  18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid using primary sources in this article if at all possible, due to substantial "fringiness" of the content. Anything found in a reliable, secondary source can be used while observing WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If reliable secondary sources have not reported a fact, that fact is most likely too trivial or fringe to warrant inclusion in our article. Jehochman 19:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, can you give me an answer to the specific question that I have included in my previous message?  Cs32en  21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I left the sentence on purpose. Since it is in the lead, presumably it is addressed in greater detail later on with proper citations. Things may not be in the lead if they are not covered in the article body. Jehochman 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

9/11 request for amendment

If you're not already aware:

Your statement(s) on the 9/11 conspiracy theories request for amendment is currently at ~1600 words. Could you do a little (well, a lot—the limit is 500 words—of) trimming of it, or at the least place some of it in collapse-boxes? It would help the master A/R page grow a little less unwieldy.

Thanks, AGK 15:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The request is highly stale and should just be archived. I will not waste further time with it. Jehochman 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I had received a complaint that the RfAr (neé A/R) page was growing unwieldy, and focussed in on your thread. A more effective way of tackling the length would probably be to simply archive the thread. :-)

On an unrelated note, I've responded to you complaint on my talk page.

AGK 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Welcome back. Jehochman 00:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of Donadio

Thank you for your constructive comments on Donadio's case. Rlevse really should apologise for that. As I have pointed out, even if the original remark wsa ambiguous (it wasn't) it doesn't give an administrator the right to cast such a terrible slur like this. Peter Damian (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again

Hi Jehochman — My conversation with AGK is not about your editing conduct, or a complaint about you as an editor. It is about how policies should apply in this topic area. It is true that the specific edits I gave as examples have been made by you. I could have given the deletion of the "In popular culture" section as another example, but this problem seems to be resolved for now. Aside from that, I don't think it would be a good idea to clutter talk pages with personal communication. — Regards.  Cs32en  00:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The article is really very much improved and we should be thinking about a peer review soon in preparation for WP:GAC. Jehochman 00:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the article is now better than when I first saw it. So we have some agreement on this point. I have seen your complaint about my response to your recent comment on my talk page at AGK's talk page.

The problem is that you did not just delete the references, but also the information which was based on these references. This may be acceptable if it's a BLP issue, or if the information would be very like false and misleading. In other cases, it is standard practice to insert a {{fact}} tag and wait for some time, so that more appropriate sources can be found.

So in this context, I think it was just logical that I understood you comment as an ironic, if not sarcastic remark. Also, the edit summaries that you have associated with the removal of the sources did not support the assumption that you actually wished that the information would be reinserted into the article, in combination with a better source.  Cs32en  00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement to add a {{fact}} tag. It is better to simply remove unverified, dubious information. Jehochman 13:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree in those cases in which the information is actually dubious. But is the statement "The magazine Popular Mechanics launched a critical investigation of 9/11 conspiracy theories in 2005." really dubious, just because it is not supported by a third-party source? A third-party source should be found, but is there any real doubt that the information is basically correct? Well, maybe Popular Mechanics actually launched its investigation in 2004 and presented the results in 2005, but that would be a minor error in the statement, and not really misleading.  Cs32en  13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are we writing about that particular article? Is it really that monumental in the history of this topic? If so, it would be covered by other sources. Otherwise, it's original research. We can't synthesize a history by saying here, here and here are important articles about this topic. Who says they are important? We are not competent as encyclopedia writers to make that judgment ourselves. We have to look to what reliable academics and journalists say are the most important articles.Jehochman 13:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This reasoning would be correct if we knew that a secondary source does not exist. The problem is that we don't know whether there is a secondary source or not. If a secondary source could have been found, but is not being found actually (for example, because the content had been deleted) then the article would suffer from the fact that a relevant piece of information is not included. My main point is that I think it's appropriate to give editors a little more time to find such sources. Also, Misplaced Pages policy does not strictly forbid to use primary sources: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." (from WP:PRIMARY) Finding sources on the internet is especially difficult for this article, as the first 100+ sites that any Google search will show are almost invariably non-WP:RS sources. (It helps a bit to insert some words that are typical for newspaper articles but rarely used on other websites, but even then it's difficult.)  Cs32en  14:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, I don't want my talk page being filled with 9/11 conspiracy theory debates. Please continue discussion at the article's talk page. Jehochman 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that we could work toward some, maybe partial, agreement on a policy issue. -- Closing this debate.  Cs32en  15:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Misplaced Pages as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

What the hell?

Seriously. I cannot help but hope you secretly know better, because if you don't, I'm not sure if I'm capable of explaining it to you. Our job is to calm things down, not heat them up. Do you really think anyone is served well by discussing a serious RfA problem and a Giano block right next each other on ANI? Isn't there a lively discussion on the 'crats board still on going?--Tznkai (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No there is not. They stiffled it. That's why I started a new thread. I suspect this matter should be taken to WP:RFAR. Jehochman 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

Hi, you were previously involved in a discussion about merging 3RR into WP:EW; please comment at WT:3RR#Merge 3RR into Edit War?. cheers, Rd232 13:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FlyingToaster arbitration

Out of curiosity, should FT return from her break and request to be desysoped, will you be going forward with your planned RfArb? I'm not sure that one will be necessary if she gives up the tools willingly, as it looks like she is working on or is willing to work on the plagiarism problems. AniMate 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I will be very glad if she recognizes the problem and resigns. My impression of her will improve greatly. Jehochman 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good. I actually feel the same way, and if she chooses not to resign, I'll be more than happy to participate in an RfArb. Perhaps you should make your intention clear on her talk page. AniMate 18:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by MZMcBride

Regarding the above. In the future please find a clerk and ask them to contact the party. That is our job. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're not already watching that page, and that thread in particular, what more can I do? Where could I ask for help that would be more prominent? I can't help it if the clerks are out to a three martini lunch while all hell breaks loose. Jehochman 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

It's the third one that gets them drunk enough to volunteer to be ArbCom Clerks. The first two alone aren't enough. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't be everywhere at once. You can ask via the Clerks' Noticeboard (which is lightly trafficked and watched by all the clerks) or the clerks' mailing list at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Either one normally gets a quick response. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Clerks-l will usually get a very prompt response as all current clerks, a few inactive clerks, and all active and recently-retired arbitrators are subscribed and reading the list; for the quickest action, I'd suggest sending a message in that direction. It's quite difficult to scrutinise every edit to A/R (and, now, it's various subpages), plus every case page, case subpage, and their talk pages, which is why it's always very useful for keen-eyed Wikipedians to draw attention to bits and bobs that need our attention.

AGK 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

spaces in empty self-closing xhtml elements

Hi, Jonathan. I've not reverted you — and note that I made the same edit on the talk page. Anyway, no, the space is not required, but it is considered good form for compatibility purposes;

• http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_2

and MediaWiki is inserting them in the served code anyway — at least to my browsers, which are likely among those you favor. And a lot of tools on and off wiki add these spaces when formatting code. Looking further down the road, we may see all these slashes going away as HTML 5 progresses.

It's been an interesting few days and it's not over yet. I nearly got ahead of Bish on the issue there abouts; I have standing, too and don't look kindly on editors tag-slapping user pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

re: template talkspace contributions

I am simply hoping that no-one else has noticed that lamentable gap in my contrib history - it could make the difference! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

user 194x144x90x118

I elect to not continue discussion on the topic raised by user 194x144x90x118 at CD. See his talk --Ihaveabutt (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to take the time to figure out if they are operating sock puppets, you can file a report at WP:SPI. Jehochman 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maxypoda

I am not harassing Bish, nor was I ever. Why is everyone, including you, not taking the time to read. This has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with what I explained quite clearly in the lead. You all tell me to assume good faith, and yet it flies out the window when you assume anything about me. I brought up the matter because I was not aware, I repeat, NOT AWARE that those accounts were of Bish. I did not associate the behavior of the accounts with her, and I had no idea they were.— Dædαlus 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. Now you know. Now you can drop it. Jehochman 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here while someone continuously calls me a liar. Do you have evidence to back up your baseless accusation? Oh wait, you don't. The three accounts listed were not behaving similarly to Bish, in that, they were only editing user talk pages, and were in fact speaking in bad english. They were not confrontational or rude like Bish was to me, so I had no reason to associate them with her. I don't associate similar usernames who have no other tie-ins. If the MO is different I assume it's a different user. You have no evidence otherwise, so stop telling me I'm harassing someone when I'm not.— Dædαlus 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, whether or not it is your intention, you've been baiting and possibly trolling other users. Please stop, or else I will stop you. Numerous users have told you to disengage, but you feel that everyone else must be wrong. Jehochman 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, everyone else is wrong. I was not baiting anyone, please stop assuming bad faith with me, as are the others. I was baiting no one. That post had nothing to do with her, it had everything to do with the fact that the accounts appeared to be acting like User:Neomewga.— Dædαlus 00:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were acting in apparent good faith, I'd expect when told that you were pestering Bishonen's alternate accounts, you'd appreciate that was a problem and immediately stop, instead of continuing to push the matter. Assume good faith has limits. When somebody is told by multiple people to drop an issue, and they continue, AGF starts dissipating. Jehochman 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did drop the issue, or did you not notice? What I then commented on, was not the account, but the assertion I had broken several wikipedia policies, or did you not take the time to read Ched's post, and my reply to it? That post had nothing to do wtih the above thread. Then, when I was told that I was doing A, I decided to try and clear it up, since apparently everyone loves assuming things about me contrary to the evidence and my explanation.— Dædαlus 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Please drop it. Maybe I've just got the wrong pages watchlisted, but all afternoon you've been showing up on my watchlist beating the same horse, and it's starting to get on my nerves. I don't know you, have never encountered you before, have no axe to grind with you, but in the future when I encounter your name, this is what I will remember. The whole project is a little tense just now, and this campaign is adding to the tension rather than relieving it. Please give it a rest. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Jehochman 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was clear from the indentation. I was addressing Daedalus. Woonpton (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed a :. I've fixed the indentation to reflect your intentions. Thank you for that clarification. Jehochman 00:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to fix it myself but got an edit conflict.Woonpton (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note - I just posted something about this on ANI, but getting overly defensive about misidentifications is a not unusual growth phase in people doing SPI investigations.

Both Daedalus and the community seem to be on short fuses right now. The most important point is that THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SPI INVESTIGATION. If you spend a lot of time looking for things you will find them. Some of the things you find are harmless, and some are well known to others but not you. These are normal parts of any SPIer career.

You have to get to the point that you can just move on from incidents like this, and not feel that you have to be defensive over having spotted the pattern. It happens. Nobody thinks worse of you for spotting it.

Digging the hole / causing the problem didn't really start until Daedalus started being defensive afterwards. The threats unfortunately exacerbate the defensiveness and probably don't help. Good time for everyone to have some tea and do something else for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

By this, did you mean this? But I'm not from the part of Connecticut that Noah Webster called home ... -- Noroton (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I live a short bicycle ride from the Webster homestead in West Hartford. Alas, the proximity has not helped my spelling. Jehochman 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like you caught it even before I mentioned it. Good thing, too, because every time he turns in his grave, they've got to winch the obelisk back up. I won't tell you how I sometimes make Tony Comstock, who does come roughly from my neck of the woods, turn over in his grave. -- Noroton (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bothroyd

He wrote a fairly widely known book. That's enough to pass speedy, though not necessarily afd. Please revert. I would revert you myself, except you invoked BLP. DGG (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"He wrote a book" is not an assertion of notability. Searching Google and Amazon.com, nothing comes up for this Bothroyd, so it does not seem to be "fairly widely known". The article had no assertion of notability, totally lacked references, had past BLP problems, the subject wanted it deleted, the AfD was unanimously in favor of deletion, and the situation is pregnant with possibilities of further BLP problems. On the whole, deletion was the right thing to do. I don't expect you to agree, as I can't remember you ever supporting deletion of any article (though you probably have occasionally). Deletion review is available if you'd like more opinions. I won't be offended. Jehochman 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually Boothroyd, not Bothroyd. If you google:David Boothroyd, you'll see a bunch of his social media profiles with no independent coverage on the first page of results. The book was published in 2001 and is out of print. If you think there are enough reliable sources to write more than a stub, you are welcome to write a biography. What was there was unsourced rubbish. It would be better for you to start from scratch in userspace and then get whatever consensus is necessary to recreate the article. Jehochman 02:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

never said it was enough to pass afd. It probably will not be. It was enough to pass speedy, as an indication of possible notability. Only that is needed. If you say it was SNOW instead, you moved too fast; had i a chance, I would have said weak keep to make sure the discussion stayed open. I am interested in promoting proper discussion, not saving the particular article--I no longer worry about individual articles, there are just too many of them for me alone to fix. But I save deletion review for the clearer mistakes on articles that will be worth the trouble. Once I and others who follow the rules get those under control, I'll work on ones like this.

But I am seriously offended by "I can't remember you ever supporting deletion of any article (though you probably have occasionally)" in spite of that final qualifier. i think you are-- unconsciously no doubt-- misremembering the views of those who disagree with you. That's not unusual, so let's look at the recent data:

May 6: 2 deletes; May 7, 4; May 8, 1; May 10, 3; May 11, 2; May 12, 1; May 14, 4, May 15: 2. A 10 day span with 19 delete !votes. Yes, I !vote keep more than delete, because most of the articles nominated for AfD are such obvious deletes they don't need me to pile on also. I only bother with the controversial ones. The proportion of my !votes is about 2 keep : 1 merge : 1 delete.

You're a more experienced admin than I by far, so it really concerns me when my willingness to be objective is maligned in this fashion. I'd like an apology. DGG (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've just see today's discussion on the arb noticeboard involving this subject/editor & obviously in the circumstances I would not dream of asking for restoration of the article. I'm only concerned about acknowledging that I do make distinctions between what should be kept and deleted at AfD--and, FWIW, I'm in the top 10% of admins in count of deleting speedies. DGG (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can testify that DGG deletes articles. He's trying delete Connie Bea Hope right now. :( And he doesn't seem to be a fan of fraternities and sororities (even when they've been around a long time) and there are lots of others subjects he's surprised me by voting delete on. Because of the level of respect he commands his votes can be tough to overcome, which I think is a testament to the his exceptional integrity. And since integrity is something Dr. Hochman has quite a lot of as well, I trust you gentlemen will be able to work this out amicably without the need for me to make any bad jokes. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my response! DGG, I think you are more experienced than I, and I think you only act in good faith. My comments were delivered with a dollop of sarcasm. We have disagreed on a few deletion discussions, but I respect your opinion! I am glad you now see the unusual circumstances surrounding this article. Jehochman 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Troll du jour

Well said (I saw the edits in question). Tiny point, to avoid possible misunderstanding: you've made a typo; this was the main article on potus, with a "c" in his first name. I'd just silently correct your comment if I didn't fear that this might lead to a tedious discussion with someone somewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

civility

Jehochman,

I notice all your hard work on WP. It would be good if all CD editors could work on civility, explanation, and less frequently stamping out one line judgments, 'parental' directives, and subject changes. Its a problem not just at CD. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Jehochman 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Keith Henson

Issues (again) with an individual switching IPs, adding unsourced material to this article. Can you please have a look? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:RFPP. I don't have time to review it properly. Jehochman 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a brief look. I know Henson well, having worked with him for several years; the IP editor probably knows him too, from what I've seen. Yes, Henson had a company in Tucson, Analog Precision. I did design work for it. Yes, he was married to Carolyn Meinel, this is well-known. I know, our personal knowledge isn't a source, but ... after all .... it does tend to organize the data! I'll take a hand there, the IP editor may need some assistance! --Abd (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you contact him and try to help. It seems that ArbCom wants him to verify his identity before he edits any Scientology topics further. Also, could you watchlist Keith Henson and help keep it free of BLP issues? Thank you. Jehochman 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some research and found some sources. As you might know, my number one concern is accuracy with information that is of weight, with a concern for efficiency for details. The issue was his dates of marriage to Carolyn Meinel and some other small details, things that if they were dead wrong would be harmless. Anyway, Cirt bounced around for a while but now seems to be okay. And I'll try to reach Keith by email, he's active on the net, still posting to alt.religion.scientology. I'm watching the article now, but I'm fairly lousy at maintaining articles even when I watchlist them, if I don't look quick, it's gone, and I already watchlist so many articles with so much traffic that it takes forever and a half to load. One of the problems with sourcing simple things like the number of kids he had with Carolyn is that most of the sources have a lot more information that I'm not sure we want linked! Basically, autobiographical information from the kids. The divorce papers in Tucson would have all that stuff, but .... I'm not there! This is all, in reality, quite notable but not reliably sourced, for the most part, very hot. What I found for some details was an affidavit Henson filed in 2003 in California that includes a bio. And other misc stuff.

Reading what happened to him.... he was a pretty outrageous guy, in certain ways, but also got tromped on by some very big boots. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't like to cite court papers in biographies because any litigant can make any sort of salacious accusations they like in a filing. Jehochman 07:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Arb decisions

How long has SA been gone and how long is his scheduled exile? I'm curious about the process and whether sanctions are shortened and under what circumstances. I also miss SA because I can't banter with him and leave sarcastic and derisive comments attacking scientific assumptions and the sometimes fanatic embrace of what passes for scientific truth without people gettign the wrong idea. When he's not here people think I'm mocking him unfairly, but in actuality I'm just giving him a hard time and stirring the pot because and I like to see what kind of soup develops. It's an evolutionary process of sorts... And, of course, I enjoy his collegial comments and insights and consider him a friend. Anyway, if you're in touch with him say hi. I don't use e-mail on Misplaced Pages because my tinfoil hat can't protect me from its ill effects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd refrain from using sarcasm around explosive situations. SA and I aren't close. You might ask User:Durova instead. Jehochman 07:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

David Boothroyd

• David Boothroyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there. I think you should revert your speedy deletion decision in this case. Seeing that the new Register article was only published yesterday, the article covered more than the article previously deleted at AFD and thus was not substantially identical, which is a key requirement to apply G4. Regards SoWhy 08:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The page was recreated after you deleted it. Could you do so again and salt it? Or possibly block the editor if he does so again?— Dædαlus 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me you're the one going around consensus by preventing a discussion on significant developments and new media coverage. TAway (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are an inch from being blocked for WP:BLP and WP:POINT. Don't push your luck. Want to discuss it? Try WP:DRV. Jehochman 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, a whole inch? I'm not intimidated by your threats in the least, and I haven't violated the BLP policy one bit; every bit of that article was reliably sourced. Your deletion was totally inappropriate given recent developments. TAway (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion is not kind to those who appear to be engaging in a coverup (even when there is no actual coverup). Once matters leave our little universe, our rules no longer apply and there could be real world implications. ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. He's in for some rough times. However, our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his problems. The register article is quite public. I don't see how anything is being covered up. People can read all the salacious details there. Misplaced Pages is not the only site on the Internet. Jehochman 08:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages is not the only site on the Internet" - heresy! burn the witch! I can't remember who said the wise words I posted above (it is indeed a quote...), but I reckon they'd probably respond with something about not only doing the right thing, but being seen to do the right thing, blocks, protections and general circle forming probably not included :-) - still the most important thing is to keep talking sensibly about this - the only thing which is giving me pause for thought is the elected official thing.... I'm chewing over my views on that one and how it relates to subject requests for article deletion at the mo... this is an interesting one, to be sure :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)and in case it's not bloomin obvious, the smiles etc. are intended to convey that as long as dialog continues somewhere, somehow, then I don't really see either you or TAway as doing anything particularly odd / outrageous... let's talk now.....

There's a discussion at WP:DRV. That's where this can be finally resolved. I kept posting that link, and somebody finally took up my suggestion! Ah, now I can have peace and quiet on my talk page. Jehochman 08:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm... well *i* heard that you were showing the champions league final tonight on your big flat screen, and there was gonna be free beer? I've invited thirty odd of my closest friends round too? .... /me steals a comfy spot on the sofa and cracks open a beer...... only 10 odd hours to go :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

TAway has posted his version of the article on his user page — not a great idea. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked them for that as I think they'll just rattle around and post it at all kinds of odd places if they are allowed to continue editing. Jehochman 08:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agreed with the closing of the 2nd nomination and wasn't trying to challenge it or anything with the 3rd one. I just figured that because the 2nd nomination was "out of process," any Deletion review would have inevitably led back to AFD, so I filed a 3rd one in a means to (hopefully) get closure on the issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD/User:TAway

Just to let you be aware of my opinions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratualtions

Good work on Gamma-ray burst. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

We're having some civility and AGF issues on this talk page, despite requests and warnings. Could you take a look/offer advice? It's the 911 deniers section specifically. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment changing.

Please don't ever change my comments just because I use words you don't personally like. If you want to revise someone's comments try sticking to your own. --WebHamster 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer that I block you for disruption and incivility? Jehochman 21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that you left my comments the fuck alone, but I will remain civil and not tell you where you can stick your threat. --WebHamster 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)