Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:38, 25 September 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.

Closing ANI

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" Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not a chatroom. It's a place to request administrative help with a problem. The page exceeded 600kb, which is way too huge. I removed the oldest and largest threads (mostly) to get the page back down to a manageable size. If you want to continue the discussion, merely link to the archive and start a new section with a brief summary of what administrative action you're seeking. Regards, Jehochman 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason why it was so long is because no admins were responding to it at all. A number of users gave evidence to how much trouble Otter has been causing but it seemed like no one was noticing. How did no one see the problem? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Once a thread gets to a certain length, especially if it looks like bickering rather than concisely presented evidence, administrators won't want to waste their time. Jehochman 17:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tymek

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)

Nope. I am taking no action. It's up to the checkusers or arbitrators to decide what to do. Jehochman 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know which checkuser(s) have been involved with the case? I'm not sure if the Arbs have him on their radar at all at the moment – he wasn't even listed as a party to the new case, last time I looked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to convince people that you are uninvolved, you have to do a better job of being indifferent! Jehochman 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

????!? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. But since I was one of those who set the stone rolling by contacting Arbcom, I can't help feeling I still have a certain responsibility, as an uninvolved administrator, to see that the people involved get treated fairly. Call it a sense of basic human decency? So, would you perhaps now be so kind and answer my simple factual question: you said you contacted several checkusers; I haven't seen that any checkusers have commented on the compromised account issue; so who can I contact to see if this has been taken care of? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not giving out any information regarding this case, other than what I choose to post. Jehochman 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, seeing your stance of irrational obstructionism vis-a-vis a fellow administrator, and in the absence of any visible activity from the checkusers, I'll have to take this into my own hands and will unblock the guy so he can take part in the arbcom case. Your behaviour is an utter mystery to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 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 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am precisely as uninvolved in this matter as you, or more so. As for undoing another admin's action, you are wrong about the need for a community discussion – for an unblock, I just need to consult with the blocking administrator, which I tried to do but failed, because you refused to give me any meaningful relevant information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 19 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 13:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not making clearer from the outset that I was acting in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. (Well, actually, I did mention my considering an unblock, right in my first posting, which is just above here, but be that as it may.) Anyway, conversely, it had never crossed my mind for a moment that anybody with any knowledge of this field of disputes would consider me anything but a neutral observer. You said in your block message that anybody considering unblocking shouldn't act "without contacting me, a checkuser or an arbitrator first" – and that was precisely what I was trying to do, not more and not less, in response to a regular unblock request I had received. In doing so, I was not requesting any privileged information from you, but merely the simple piece of information of which checkuser to contact further. – As for my status, you are wrong in assuming that being listed as an Arbcom "party" automatically translates into being "involved" in the sense of the admin policy. It is quite common for people to be listed merely in their role as neutral filing parties, or as admins who have previously taken some enforcement action in the area, and such admins are perfectly free to continue doing so while the case is ongoing (as, for instance, was done by User:Horologium in our recent Macedonia case, where he continued taking care of the contentious page protections, with explicit encouragement from the Arbitrators.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, everything is clear now. Please understand that a variety of folks were pressuring me, and I did not understand that you were uninvolved. It's always been my habit not to use tools in any matter after ArbCom lists or accepts my name as an involved party. Better safe than sorry. We have no shortage of admins around here. You did mention unblocking, but your note was ambiguous ("tend to unblock" rather than "going to unblock"). Jehochman 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear talk page watchers (Yes, You!)

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 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Que-king myself...

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)

Admittedly, my view of human nature is excessively Hobbesian, but I have yet to meet a human being incapable of dishonesty... :P MastCell  21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Principle requested

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)

I've posted something. If an individual administrator is going to act, we should have a technical mechanism, and the boundaries should be well-defined. Our topic bans are sufficiently nebulous that without strong demonstrated consensus, it is a practical impossibility for an individual administrator to place one. Jehochman 15:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

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.

• It was also agreed that 'Daily Pioneer article by Sandhya Jain' is reliably sourced.
• Not including the 'The Daily Pioneer covering the Alaya Rahm trial' will be a BLP violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question.

In the conclusion the source referred by Priyanath is the 'Daily Pioneer' article.

• New developments:

There are some editors and other activists who don't want to follow the earlierWP: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.

• I informed in the WP:RS board that this source has already been discussed and declared as 'reliable'.
• Response from Fifelfoo here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain was 'I don't particularly case what past RS discussions found. OP-ED pieces do not present facts, but opinions'. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC). WP:RS supposed to be helping the editors but in this case its causing more confusing. If theWP:RS commentors says he doesn't care about earlier WP:RS discussions then why should editors care anything what the WP:RS board says in these discussion?
• I think its becoming political. Why should a source already declared as reliable discussed again in the WP:RS.
• Any suggestions from you here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain

will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

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)

It's nothing! Jehochman 10:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Surprised at the drama bomb I inadertedly set off. I wasn't out to get Giano blocked, just commenting on the whole picture, but I can't disagree with the block, I'm afraid. It just wasn't nice, and Giano either knows better or is not capable of learning better. Oh well. We will survive.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a pragmatist. The block was a bad decision because it wastes a lot of time for no benefit. Giano will not back down, so why create the huge fuss? If you look at my logs, you'll see I almost never perform any sort of block unless the user has been so naughty they deserve an indef. Blocks on good faith users are bad business. Jehochman 12:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Not for feuding"

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)

Could you please provide diffs demonstrating this "feud", or alternatively strike such comments? I really have not seem any evidence of this rather damning accusation. Chillum 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't feign ignorance on my talk page. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse. Notice that Mattisse has had a history of unproductive interactions with Giano. Why is she now appearing at an ANI thread to lobby for blocking Giano? That's bad form. You, Chillum, also have a history of conflict with Giano. It would be great if you folks would stop battling and go write articles instead. Jehochman 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not feigning anything. Please assume good faith. I will review the one link you gave me and look for this evidence of a feud when I have time. As for your accusation regarding me, would you please provide diffs or stike it? Really, you should be providing evidence with your accusations, not making them and then only providing evidence when asked. When digging up these diffs please keep in mind WP:ADMIN which says "Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace".

I will also say that personal attacks drive off many good contributors every day and that we block people for making personal attacks every day. Enabling the behavior of attacking other editors by making accusations of corruption for what is really just a routine application of policy is not helpful to our project. The WP:NPA policy also makes it clear that "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians", the idea that a special standard should be applied to Giano is against community consensus and policy. If you wish to propose changes to either of these policies I will gladly participate in the debate. Chillum 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, you're comments while perhaps well-intentioned, come across to me as argumentative and badgering. I don't like it. You don't need to lecture me on policy. A good essay to read is WP:SPADE. Please don't comment here again until you have had a chance to read the link I provided. Jehochman 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that link provide also substantiate the claims you made against me? If you don't want people coming to your talk page asking for evidence then don't make accusations. Chillum 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't follow your logic. You came here, commented, and I replied. You then challenged my reply. That's moderately pugnacious. Perhaps you should just go edit an article and stop posting here. If you do, I will certainly stop replying! Regards, Jehochman 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry, I have communicated poorly. I was referring to User_talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia_is_not_for_feuding, not Mattisse. I read the thread title and assumed it was the same topic. I did not know there were more than one person being attributed to this feud. I see now we have been talking cross purposes and that this is the result of my lack of clarity.

It was not really my intention to challenge your reply but rather to seek clarification regarding your comment about me. I still don't know what you mean by "You, Chillum, also have a history of conflict with Giano". My past interaction with this user has been solely in the form of enforcing policy as an administrator, something that policy makes clear does not exclude me. If there is something I am forgetting please point it out. To be honest any admin active over the last few years, including yourself, has some level of involvement with Giano, so we should really stick to what the admin policy considers to be "involvement".

I am not trying to be a dick(or even a little pugnacious), I am however trying to make clear what is being said about who and for what reasons. I am sorry that I am being made to feel unwelcome in discussing the things you have said over the last day or so. I don't think I am being out of line making a polite request for clarification on these things, I will give you some time. Nothing personal, peace. Chillum 23:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you focus less on actions "solely in the form of enforcing policy as an administrator" and more on resolving disputes and helping good faith editors improve the encyclopedia by treating them respectfully and collegially. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,