| Revision as of 08:45, 11 August 2010 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Very poor judgement: moving← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:35, 19 November 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,375,497 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Jehochman/Archives 25. (BOT) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Inline image | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |image = File:Naturhistorisk Privatundervisning.jpg | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | |
|size = 500px | ||
| |align = center | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |alt = Placeholder alt text | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jehochman/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |fullwidth = yes | |||
| |capcenter = yes | |||
| |caption = <br/>{{big|{{big|"Hold on, I zoned out for a minute. Which one of you was the Icewhiz sock again?"}}}}{{small|]}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{/Antizilla}} | |||
| <!--my archives are messed up so I have removed the links. They might be fixed some day--> | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| ] | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:Jehochman/Archives | |||
| |format= %%i | |||
| {{TOCright}} | |||
| |age=168 | |||
| |minkeepthreads=1 | |||
| == Forum shopping == | |||
| |maxarchsize=350000 | |||
| |numberstart=25 | |||
| I noted that you closed ChrisO's ANI against Cla68 for forum shopping, and thought that you might want to be aware that he has also posted a notice (linking to the ANI) on the CC enforcement page and has initiated a WQA on the same issue. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| |header={{aan}} | |||
| |archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki> | |||
| : I got the WQA. I had unwatchlisted that other page, and will look now. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ::Cla68 has been trying to stir things up while the Arbs are negotiating the case. I've been trying to tell ChrisO that the more he lets it get to him the harder Cla68 will bore in, but unfortunately haven't had an effect. ] (]) 04:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| :::Yup. ChrisO seems intent upon getting himself sanctioned. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Come on, Jehochman - Cla68 posts a blatant lie and personal attack about me and ''I'm'' the one you tell should back off? He gets away scott-free while I'm the one who's warned for complaining? Where are the words of advice for Cla68? Who is the victim here? -- ] (]) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Jehochman - I assume you are aware that the evidence section of the ''Climate Change'' Arbcom case has been closed for a while? Where do you suggest that personal attacks, and other incidents, related to Climate change be reported? (I'm asking more about possible future incidents than about the present one). ] (]) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Report them to ] for the moment, or to ] if you must, and then to ] once a decision is rendered. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Blablaaa's talk page access == | |||
| Hi Jehochman. I am wondering why you decided to revoke ]'s talk page access. The reason you gave was "Resumed disruption after unblock, See evidence at ]". Firstly, he doesn't seem to have been unblocked recently, unless you're referring to the unblock in April? Secondly, I skimmed the RFC quickly (it is quite long!) but I couldn't see the evidence you were pointing at. Please could you point me to the relevant section? I looked in his talk page history and couldn't see any talk page abuse, so I'm left a bit puzzled. Thanks! --] ] 13:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : You merely need to read the content two sections up. A user asserted that Blablaa was a sock of a banned editor. Upon your assertion that Blablaa was not a sock, I decided to reverse that decision. Could you please explain what you think is going on with Blablaa? I notice that you stood up for them and helped arrange the unblock, which turned out to have a pretty bad result for the articles that got degraded, and the users who were upset. I'd hope we could avoid repeating that mistake, but if there is a way to rehabilitate Blablaa, I am open to that. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regarding his conduct, I unfortunately fear that Blablaaa has outstayed his welcome on enwiki now, especially now that I've read this thread two sections up. I've my statement at RFAR to reflect this fact. It doesn't help that someone is now creating impersonation accounts. I'm trying to deal with that matter as we speak. Still, my primary concern right now is that his talk page access has been revoked when they've not really done anything to warrant that action, especially since you've when he actually can't post one due to not having talk page access. Could you elabourate on that? Thanks. --] ] 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did not revoke Blablaaa's access until somebody asserted and showed evidence that Blablaaa was a sock of a banned editor. Banned editors are not allowed to contribute anywhere, not even on their own talk pages. When you showed up and said this sock connection was an error, I took your statement at face value because you're a CU, so presumably you know what you're talking about. If you don't mind, please remove your hot poker from my person. It is uncollegial the way you are attempting to grill me over a completely routine matter. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I apologise if I've been overly terse. It was not my intention to grill you. For what it's worth, I originally assumed that those accounts were his sockpuppets, much as you did. Once I checked the accounts, things became clearer. Your actions were perfectly reasonable and correct based on the evidence you had. I'm looking into it in detail and will try to straighten all the loose ends together. I'll change Blablaaa's block so that he can edit his talk page. Thanks for your help! --] ] 14:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| ] | |||
| *Marshmallow anyone? =P --] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup> 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've already changed the block to allow editing and mailing. I did that as soon as I saw your comment about them not being socks. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, thanks! --] ] 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| You may want to re-evaluate giving him talk page access. Instead of posting an unblock request as instructed, he is now soapboxing on the talk page. -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == WMC == | |||
| My acceptance of a CC topic ban was on the belief that WMC would be topic banned from the area, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I think it is the right thing to do, but I will withdraw my name if he is allowed to continue editing in that area. I don't mind staying away, but if he is laughing at the Misplaced Pages policies and doing whatever he wishes it doesn't make sense to leave and cede control to his faction. | |||
| I'm open to suggestions. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Stay. He is still restricted, and I think that the restriction will not be overturned. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just concerned. Thanks, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 22:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry, but with WMC editing GW/CC articles , I have to remove my name from the list. Should sanctions be applied to him, I will re-add my name, but I'm not willing to let him edit whatever he wants without consequences. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is that a CC article? It looks like a plain old meteorology article to my untrained eye. There is no evidence of conflict on the article talk page either. Rest assured that if WMC does anything provocative, it would be dealt with appropriately. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It is CC now - he just added info that said it was related to global warming. I'll be looking to see if there is a counter-point argument for balance. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == I'm not certain i understand... == | |||
| .... As far as i know ''all'' articles that touch upon climate change are covered under the probation, not just those tagged. So which climate articles do you think aren't under CC probation? Note that i'm writing this here instead of on GC/CC/RE, since i understood the pledge to be for ''all'' pages (talk, probation, etc.). --] (]) 23:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Anything that hasn't been contentious and isn't focusing on climate change should be fine. I would go by the spirit of the pledge, to avoid conflict. We have lots of articles on climate and weather which can be edited without referencing climate change. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the clarification. --] (]) 00:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Prior experience has shown that the only way for this to work is if the restriction is applied to all articles relevant to the gas commonly known as ''air,'' including its chemical constituents, the physical processes governing its motions and phenomena, and any resulting geophysical, biological, economic, social or legal consequence of its existence or actions, broadly construed. Any restriction requiring "common sense" or "reasonableness" is a non-starter. Trust me on this. ] (]) 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also all astronomical bodies in the solar system that are of at least hydrostatic equilibrium size. --] (]) 01:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I lol'd, even though it is at least half-true. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| For proposing the voluntary ban, which I think is an excellent idea that should help to calm this fevered case down somewhat ] (]) 12:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : You're welcome. Sorry about the confusion in the steps that got us there. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I agree, yes thanks! (Also while i am here, I owe you an apology for the mix-up on this ) ] (]) 02:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :ZP5, please notice that Jehochman has explicitly stated that the voluntary ban includes article talk pages. You are of course under no obligation, but self-reverts here would set a great example for others to follow. ] (]) 03:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks; however, I explicitly committed to ZERO reverts. ] (]) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Hi, since you are the one who started the volunteer list to stop editing CC articles I have some questions that might be helpful . Just so you know I am not involved in any of these article, none of them are on my watchlist. I do lurk at the sanction page, the PD page now that all the evidence is in and there is to be an announcement from the arbitrators. I just want to bring my comments/questions to your attention because I really think that the two questions I ask would be really helpful to the uninvolved and even the involved to know. Thanks for your time, --]] 18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| == Help requested on ANI == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Hello Jehochman, with you as an uninvolved third party, could I interest you to take a look ]? Although I must confess that I was a tad heavy-handed but that's explained in there as well, thoughts? --] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup> 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :*J, how come the silence? Appreciate if you could give me your frank neutral third party opinion, thanks~! --] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup> 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I patrol pages and get involved in whatever catches my eye; I generally don't take requests, though I'm happy to be notified of any issue where I've participated previously. This doesn't look like a matter where I've participated previously. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Notification of AN/I discussion == | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] (]) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 02:35, 19 November 2024
"Hold on, I zoned out for a minute. Which one of you was the Icewhiz sock again?"Source
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)