User talk:Jehochman: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:48, 31 January 2008 editජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →Relevant articles: takes two to tango.← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:49, 31 January 2008 edit undoජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →Article probation notification: me, not you.Next edit →
Line 327:		Line 327:

	==Article probation notification==		==Article probation notification==
	You are well-aware that this article is covered under the ]. Please do not edit war, or you may be placed under an editing restriction, such as revert limitation or topic ban. Thank you. ] ~~<sup>~~]~~</sup>~~ 16:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)		You are well-aware that this article is covered under the ]. Please do not edit war, or you may be placed under an editing restriction, such as revert limitation or topic ban. Thank you. ] (]) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:49, 31 January 2008

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.

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 answer posts on the same page.

Follow up to ANI thread

Follow up to this ANI thread

If you want specific examples, the (failed) discussion (several months ago now) to ban User:Gene Nygaard is a good one. I supported Gene in that, and Gene has done, and is continuing to do, excellent work. Some people got exasperated with what were (in my opinon) minor civility issues, and (even where it was obvious they were involved and biased) started calling for a ban. That really shocked me. I think talk of exhausting the "community's patience" often translates as "exhausting the patience of those who have the least patience and who call for a ban over the wishes of those who have more patience". I can dig up links to that discussion if you want. In essence, I think that one of the options in these "community ban" discussions, where there is a small minority opinion dissenting from the ban, should be to go to ArbCom and let them decide. Community ban discussions can be a bit hit-and-miss. To raise another example, there is a user who I feel could still be a productive editor (but could equally go back to his old ways - no real way of telling until he is unblocked), but who is indefinitely blocked at the moment. It has become clear to me that part of the reason he is still blocked is inexperience with the system. People often say, oh, people can e-mail unblock-l (the unblocking mailing list), but I recently looked at the message people get when they are blocked, and there are references to some form people have to fill in to send to that list and apply to be unblocked. I really hope that is not as bureaucratic as it sounds. In this case, the talk page was protected. I would like to see the talk page unprotected, so a normal unblock request can be made, and I would like to avoid the "you haven't fully explained why you won't do this again" response that sometimes happens to unblock requests (asking people to write essays on what they did wrong is not always helpful, and neither is failing the unblock request on a technicality - much better to engage in discussion and find out answers to the unanswered questions). ie. cursory, pedantic and dismissive unblock request responses are very bad and breed a sense of injustice and a sense of "I don't want to see you unblocked, but instead of explaining why, I will fail the unblock request on a technicality". The other point is that when the blocking admin declines to unblock when another admin objects, what should be done then? I would like a way to have an independent review without the drama of ANI threads. Could I e-mail another admin and ask them to review the situation? Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples of my concern over community ban discussions are here, and at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2 (see here - careful, that is an undelete link). I was disgusted to see the community ban threat being used during an RfC like that (however unwarranted the RfC may have been). In the end, it all got deleted anyway. The third case, the one I want advice on, I would prefer to discuss over e-mail. Could I e-mail you for advice? Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with IP socks of banned User:Editorhwaller

Hi, back on January 7 you indefinitely banned User:Editorhwaller for sockpuppetry. He keeps resurfacing as anon IPs to vandalize my Talk page with his "warnings." and he's back today What's a simple way to stop this? Can I semi-protect my Talk page? You're the one admin who took quick and decisive action after the last go-round with him, so I thought I'd turn to you. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I see that he's blanked the admin's block on another of his sockpuppet Talk pages at: . I suppose that's his right, right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your edit to my Talk page vandalism, but based on your advice the thing to do is just leave it for week, right? This time, he's using an anon IP which has been warned and blocked before and should be blocked again, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not what I intended. Fixed now. Hopefully they will quit soon, or else I will semi-protect the page. Jehochman 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The nonsense with this anon IP (I'm pretty sure it's all the same person) continues unabated on Snowfire51's Talk page.See Is there a way to block this anon IP? cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspicions about new users

Hi. I'm feeling a little paranoid, I guess, and would like some outside administration opinion on something, but I don't think its something that can be filed at ANI or the like. Yesterday, the account User:MoviesOnDemand was created. For his first action, he tagged Grizzly Rage, an article I created, for plot issues (which I left, as I agreed with it). After that, however, other than leaving a note on Talk:Black Beauty (1994 film), the bulk of his edits have been against Meerkat Manor, an article I've done a lot of work on and that is currently a featured article candidate. He has attacked the article in the talk page, first claiming it wasn't notable or worth spending time on, then slandering the show and research by false claims of cruelty, before finally complaining about the formatting. He made some comments another found completely inappropriate and removed. He ignored my attempts at rational discussion about the article's content and format, and repeating multiple times that the article had been reviewed by multiple folks, including being copy edited by an expert, going through a peer review, and of course its current FAC. He ignored it all and changed the article format anyway. After a round of my undoing and redoing and finally leaving him a warning, he stopped. He's still complaining on the talk page, though another editor has also told him to leave it be.

My concern stems from another new user account User:ModelCitizenAward08, which was created during a time when MoviesOnDemand was inactive. That new user's account only edit appears to be an attempt to prevent Meerkat Manor from reaching FA status as its only edit was to oppose the FAC. I suspect both accounts belong to the same person, as both harp on being "engaging" and complain that the article is hard on their eyes. I also suspect both belong to someone else who I've aggravated by what appears to be a targeted attack on my first FA and the first article mentioned in my list of accomplishments and major contributions. So long explanation done, am I being paranoid, and if there is cause for suspicion, what if anything can be done about it? Collectonian (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out. Glad to know I wasn't just being paranoid :) Collectonian (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Nice pickup. Somehow, I doubt this one is going to get written up in The Register, but all the same, good job. MastCell 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Minor annoyances are easily controlled. When a small problem is ignored, it tends to grow. Jehochman 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for the harsh words earlier today. I guess I was completely wrong. I like JOG in spite of (or perhaps because of) his eccentricities and was reluctant to believe he would do something so silly. I wonder why JOG felt the need to be deceptive in order to make a legitimate point--that Rodhullandemu really was nasty to him last October. The complaint would have had a bigger impact coming from a respected admin than from an unknown sock. But there's a great deal about life that I don't understand. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a simple mistake, a failure to consider how his action would impact and be perceived by others. My original intention was to ask him which account he wanted to keep, and get rid of the other, and be done with nothing more than a warning. However, I did not know all the past history. Let's see what happens. No hard feelings whatsoever, I assure you. Best regards, Jehochman 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cordelia's Dad AfD

I recommend you withdraw it. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. Jehochman 21:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Manhore

A new user User:Manhore is now making precisely the same edits to McGill University using the exact same examples as banned troll User:Editorhwaller. More to the point, I believe his name is in violation of Misplaced Pages's User name policy. May I suggest a block on that basis, to stop all this from gettin out of hand? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please file at WP:SSP. It only takes a minute. Provide a few diffs showing the same behavior, and provide a one or two sentence explanation. We need to document this, and perhaps we will run a checkuser to identify any other accounts he may be hiding. Jehochman 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Upon consideration, this edit to the lead doesn't appear to be of the same ilk as the others. Maybe I was hasty. Frankly, I started appealing to you on these matters because I found WP:SSP quite incomprehensible. But I guess the only way to master this stuff is muddle though it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Do try, and somebody will help you along. Perhaps it will be me. I watch that page when I have time. Jehochman 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're the best. God knows where you find the time or patience for all this. Have a great weekend. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN

Thanks. I thought they would be, being there... but. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"...has endorsed the idea"

I am wondering about this:.

You say Grandmasterka endorsed the idea of Elonka resigning. But looking through GMK's contributions I don't see any such endorsement. Perhaps you misread? _{(1 == 2)} 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, I'm not sure Grandmasterka has actually supported the idea, so maybe refractoring that until it is confirmed may be best. — Save_Us † 15:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thank you. Jehochman 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears my clue as been absorbed. _{(1 == 2)} 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

In your Franco-Mongol alliance ArbCom statement, you are using "resigned" in a way that sounds misleading. PHG is requesting that Elonka resign (i.e. give up) her adminship, while you note that I "resigned as mediator because the process was failing". The juxtaposition of the two pieces sounds, in my opinion, unclear about the fact that I just closed the case and didn't resign much. -- tariqabjotu 15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thank you. Jehochman 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User Stagalj

Some editing which I explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ante_Paveli%C4%87 have been reverted by Stagalj with the explanation that he was "fixing damaged text." He seems to be driven by an obsession to define IMRO as terrorists, which I have argued several times to be POV. As he fully understands the talk-page process I wonder whether his wholesale reverting, without reasonable explanation, amounts to vandalism. Perhaps you could take a look if you get time. Kirker (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown

Now that the discussion is over, how does one go about re-deleting User:Piperdown/1, which had been previously deleted and was restored during the pendency of discussion?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted it and left a note for User:Krimpet to confirm. Jehochman 20:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi MM, I think you have one more request to make (diff) R. Baley (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm one step ahead of you. Blanked it a few minutes ago. You, if you have the tools, or Jehochman should feel free to delete it if you feel it is warranted.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All set. Jehochman 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is it OK for me to add some comments to the archived discussion page? I see from here that it seems to be allowed.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That was the fastest response I have ever received!--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Meant with the greatest of respect, really.

Your archiving was ill-advised. David hadn't even weighed in yet.

More to the point, you completely ignored the fact that your pseudo-policy - the "three ways" that you numbered as your last word - were already addressed by several people on the thread and pointed out as a novel innovation. Plainly put, you were and are wrong about that. Consensus is not required to undo an action if a good faith attempt has been made to discuss it on a public forum or with the original admin. You know that, and your attempting to heave it over to arbcom is unhelpful, and, frankly, a damn dangerous thing to do. We can't go running to arbcom every single time, and your preferred approach creates too great a first-mover advantage, which is a particularly poor institutional structure.

I suggest you try and avoid actions like this in the future. Clamping down on discussion only makes the next outbreak of drama worse. I would have thought you'd noticed that by now. Relata refero (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You may contact David Gerard (talk · contribs) and ask him to explain the block.
My "pseudo policy" was a statement of the position in that particular moment. It was not policy.
Consensus is most certainly required to undo an admin action, except in cases of obvious errors, or occasionally per ignore all rules when there is a pressing need, which is not the case here. ArbCom has made this clear on several occasions.
"Heaving over to arbcom" is not at all dangerous. The user, should they wish to be unblocked, can email ArbCom and request a review. Reviews are conducted by individual members of the Committee. This is much simpler than bringing a case.
I do not see how a first mover advantage is worse than the utter chaos that results from wheel warring, or from a second mover advantage.
The length of that discussion was exceptional. The user requested unblocking not because they wanted to edit, but because they wanted to blank their user pages and mark their account retired. This was done for them by an administrator. There was no need to unblock, and no consensus to do so. The thread was deteriorating rapidly. People were repeating the same arguments over and over again, and beginning to insult and provoke each other. Since no further administrative action was possible, and the user received the result that they requested, and the conversation was creating bad blood, it was clearly time to end the discussion.

Thank you for your comments. I hope this response is helpful in some way, although I recognize you may not agree with me. Jehochman 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You can always recognise the fresh-faced ones - they actually reply in points. Thank you.

You're right, I don't agree, but I think perhaps I wasn't clear either.

Consensus is most certainly reqired to undo an admin action, according to ArbCom: which ruling is this? Seriously, point me to the statement of principle. (Plus, ArbCom does not make policy.)

Second, I meant 'dangerous' in the sense that it empowers the first mover when ArbCom is busy, as it always is and will be. Why is a strong first-mover advantage bad? It's chaotic. (Which is why most real-world institutions do not preserve a strong first-mover advantage. Think about it, or read Dennis Mueller's Public Choice.) On WP, you'd have people being bold all over the place without a hope of undoing it if three other admins supported it. Which is precisely what we don't want, and never have. HAve you even read WP:BRD? What's the second part of that cycle, pray? (For that matter, what's the third?)

The discussion was long. So make a subpage. Over time discussions here will get longer, not shorter, and you can't keep turning them all off. People were insulting each other from line one, so it wasn't getting worse.

Finally, it seems to me that the user wanted to be unblocked, not just a deletion, judging by the quotes I saw; and further, I expected to see an analysis of the original block as well. So your statement that no further action was possible is obviously untrue.

Cheers.

Relata refero (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany for Deletion

Hello Jehochman:

I am putting a note here because I see your name, along with others, here:

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2.

My question, may I see the deleted document or is it gone, fini, caput, etc?

I will explain why I'm asking if this will help.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew that nomination. Afterwards, the page may have been deleted by somebody else. Let me look... User:Ryan Postlethwaite deleted it with the reason, "insufficiently certified RfC and strong consensus that there is no disruptive behaviour". For further inquiries about this, you may contact him. Jehochman 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Old post up above

Hi there. Was wondering if you missed this? Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I did miss it! My page has been busy. Please email me the case you'd like to discuss. I agree that the community banning process needs to be overhauled. I am wondering if we should move the ban discussions from ANI to an RfC-like page? An RfC can stay open much longer than an ANI thread, while there can be a link on AN and ANI advertising the discussion. Within the RfC, views can be presented, and if no administrator opposes, a ban or other remedy, such as a topic ban can be implemented. There should be a certification requirement to make sure bans are not proposed willy nilly. In the event that there is administrator opposition to a proposed remedy, then the matter can be referred to Arbcom, and the RfC would be a good starting point to understand the dispute. Jehochman 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other issues are the community unbanning, and un-indef-blocking processes. We could clarify these processes to assist those who may want to use them. We should also look at the message blocked users see, and do any copy editing that would improve the usability of that page and minimize bureaucracy. Jehochman 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. Mission creep! :-) Reform all of Misplaced Pages in a day! Well, maybe tomorrow. I'll check back here then, and deal with the e-mail tomorrow as well. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiPedia has a Problem

I tried adding a video link to a story that Prescott Bush was pro Hitler and anti FDR, to the Talk:Prescott Bush user User:Veritas started an edito war with me clayming that WP:NOT#FORUM and violated WP:3RR. I wanted to file a 3RR violation complaint but my browser froze and I lost the edit. I was to tired and went to sleep. When I walk up User:VirtualSteve blocked me from editing for 31 hours claiming disruptive style of editing while not even examining the other editor's actions. It is not the first time VirtualSteve has admonished me in vaine. Last time when I asked him help with a deletion of a mistaken user page creation he called me a Troll. Later I reported the bug to bugzilla. VirtualSteve refering to me as an Aligator on his Talk page.

This is the Veritas WP:OWNERSHIP issue. User_talk:Igorberger#WP:NOT

This is VirtualSteve abusive admin action User_talk:Igorberger#January_2008

Right at the same time I was blocked a WikiPedia Propoganda article was published. http://naturalhealthperspective.net/2008/01/26/gohdes-apprentice/

Doe VirtualSteve own http://naturalhealthperspective.net

Please investigate! Igor Berger (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a fringe video to me. If you were edit warring, getting blocked is the usual result. Jehochman 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a fringe video because later I realized the reporters story, "How Bush's gradfther helped Hitler raise to power http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1312542,00.html already incorporated in the article Prescott Bush#Nazi collaboration controversy Prescott_Bush#_note-Guardian. Also the editor waring with me had no reason to thow templates at my talk page and call me a vandal. I am an editor as well. And he did not respect the 3RR.

Please ask VirtualSteve, politely, to explain what the problem was. Jehochman 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I politely asked for his help he called me a Troll. Request to User_talk:Peachyms/ delete the erronies page was called Trolling by VirtualSteve Igor Berger (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. The issue between VirtualSteve and me has been resolved. Igor Berger (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the root of the problem, I hope VirtualSteve can help me clarify it. But User:Veritas thinks I am trolling his page because I came to extend my hand to him. Let's see if VS can help out and clear the air out so we can nip this in the bud..:) But I am really supprised to see veteren user Veritas template nublets and regulars, he should know better. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor

Hi Jehochman - you have probably followed the thread of edits already but I note on my return to wiki this afternoon the nonsense above. Although he has not taken your advice - and given his manipulation of the system on your page - I am unlikely to even answer him but at this stage in good faith I have pre-empted his coming to my page or continuing with his current line above by posting notices regarding this abundant untruthfulness here, and here--VS 08:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, why do I want to come to your page after you asumed bad faith on my part and called my a Troll and a crocodile and a destructive editor. You are violating WP:NPA Igor Berger (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please come to my talk page Igor - politely - leave Jehochman alone - stop telling stories and point me to exact diffs of these complaints. Then I can show you why you are a troll, why you were warned by other editors for trolling, why I never called YOU a crocodile (you were not even a part of the conversation) and why you are a destructive editor. I will also post this edit on your talk page and will not respond further anywhere else. So please come to my talk page when you are ready.--VS 09:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, Igor Berger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So I thought but instead of deescalating the matter VirtualSteve is thowing more gasoline on the fire This is what he said to me when I asked him for help, "VirtualSteve can you telll User:Veritas I am not Trolling you or him - Not a chance - Veritas was and is correct" Igor Berger (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed re-direct!

Cows In Action is very notable now, incase you didn't know. Before re-directing the page again, please please search on google. THANK YOU. (Donmardon (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Answer

Your not allowed to say your age, are you? just tell me.

We do not want minors to publish their ages because (1) they could be targeted by bad people, and (2) sometimes bad people pose as minors in order to lure other minors into trouble. Jehochman 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Troll

User:Jehochman I know you stated your opinion on this already, but I would like you to take a look at this Talk:Troll_(Internet)#Wikipedia_Troll. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Spanpo

I added User Spanpo because he has the same or similar userpage to some of the other socks and he was mentioned here as a confirmed sock but was not blocked so I assumed that Spebi accidentally missed him when blocking. Thanks Harland1 (/_c) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

Aye. It looks like that one was accidentally skipped. I have blocked it now. Thank you. Jehochman 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize

JH, I apologize to you personally for reneging on my "works for me". I promise that I am done now. I appreciate your fairness, Jonathan. I know I pushed it a bit far this time. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad. Know thyself. Each of us has hot button issues that we are best to avoid. Just recuse yourself from all Smee-related activities and you will be fine. Cheers, Jehochman 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your closing note at WP:ANI

Your closing note at WP:ANI is inaccurate. I have been "ignoring" JustaHulk (talk · contribs)/Justanother (talk · contribs). I just pointed that out in the WP:ANI thread. In fact, I was heeding your warning from the last thread he started at WP:AN. It was he that brought this up, again, not me. So how can you feel you have to caution both of us, and not just him, when I have been following your advice??? Cirt (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not my purpose to single people out. If you are not going to do what somebody warns you not to do, then you have nothing to worry about. You do get my point that JustWhoever is not allowed to bother you, and likewise, you will not choose to interact with them. Peace, Jehochman 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. However if only one person obviously breaks your warning to them, and the other one does not, I hope that in the future you will not warn caution both parties again, but rather just call out obviously disruptive activity on the part of whichever singular user is not paying attention to your warning. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't show up at the thread, I would have only needed to warn the party who was present. Next time, I recommend you remain silent if you do not wish to draw attention. Jehochman 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your words are wise. It is difficult to remain silent in the presence of (still) unfounded WP:NPA accusations of "propagandist" and the like. It's hard because when I see an attempt being made to sully my name on very public boards, it is hard to keep silent. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been through that myself. It's the hardest thing to walk away, but it really is the best. Jehochman 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in certain cases I have been silent, and then later people misinterpret things or get the wrong idea because I never explained myself, commented, or presented my case/side of the story. But I do tend to agree with you that in the aggregate, your suggestion is the best approach with regards to this situation and others. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

I've just added headings to hopefully separate some of the issues on the Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) page - would you like to comment again? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman

Hi Jehochman. I am quite surprised about several of your very aggressive statements regarding the Franco-Mongol alliance and myself. Please be aware that I have always been willing to compromise (and a cursory glance at the article will show you all the instances of allies/vassals, and disclaimers by Elonka that have long been included in the article), and I trust I have been the most supple and responsive party at Mediation (you can ask Tariqabjotu). I am very serene about my own editing, as everything I contribute is taken from proper published sources. I know the subject is quite arcane, and most people are surprised by it, but I think I have been very thourough and quite objective in covering it. I would appreciate if you could have a slightly more balanced opinion on the subject. Best regards. PHG (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I am surprised to have waited three days with no reply from you to a thread you started at my user talk about this RFAR. You wrote "The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. " I have now provided one example to demonstrate an issue worth investigating. Please see my statement, at the bottom. Of course I was unable to do so because the one example you provided was a link to a deleted page. Why go out of your way to invite me to look at something I can't see, then leave me hanging when I reply that I can't see it? Durova 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If the case is accepted, evidence will be presented and deleted articles will be undeleted if necessary. PHG, I did contact El C and asked him to look into this because he knows something about the history of Jerusalem. He says that he found a few references about Mongols in Jerusalem, so it may be worth your while to follow up with him. Durova, if you look at these articles, and then pull up a few of the books listed as references by using Google Scholar, I think you will find a startling disconnect between what the sources say and what the articles say. Jehochman 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, and reads like a reply to some other question I didn't ask. Please be more considerate of my time. It's not very polite to draw another Wikipedian's attention to evidence you know they can't read, then direct the person elsewhere when they ask why. Durova 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked an uninvolved arbitration clerk to provide you with a copy of the relevant article. Sorry for the delay. I am not going to undelete this article myself because I am potentially an involved party. If my request is approved, you should receive a copy very soon. Jehochman 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think

User:Igorberger/Social engineering (Internet)

This is a user essay that I would like to move to main space as an essay once I finished with it. I am almost done, just syntax and structure. Igor Berger (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Probation

You think that is the way to go? I am not so sure, but maybe.--Filll (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try. If it doesn't work, we can undo it. Jehochman 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is not so much incivility. There is a group, represented by User:Orangemarlin and User: Peter morrell for example, are not always civil, but who cares? They are productive and are willing and able to follow the rules and they have demonstrated this, and as far as I am concerned, that is the main thing.

However, there is a second group, consisting of a good half dozen or more "regulars" on the homeopathy pages, and a few socks, anons, meats, etc that appear and disappear, that are (1) unproductive (2) reject ideas to try to make things productive or cooperative or bury the page in text spew repeating the same nonsense over and over so we are flooded with garbage and cannot function and (3) are unable and / or unwilling to follow the rules and procedures of Misplaced Pages.

I do not know if the administrative structions can handle or are even aware of the second group, since they are civil. The administrative procedures go after the first group, because they are easy to spot, particularly when one says something like "You are a flaming $#^%*!!". The system "works" and targets people from group 1, but over and over and over, ignores people from group 2.

It is just too hard and too much effort to sanction people from group two, compared to people from group one. So that is what the system does; it follows the easy path.

And we get what we get. Now by being even more aggressive, will the attention be focused on group one or group two? Cracking down on group one harder will do NOTHING that is needed. It is group two that is our root problem. --Filll (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on how uninvolved administrators interpret "disruptive edits". That should mean more than incivility--it should apply to misrepresenting sources, obstructing efforts to reach consensus, and so on. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding warning tag that was removed on homeopathy talk page: Is this the discussion you are talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)\

Yes and if it goes into effect, a lot of the people on the talk page and on the article will not do what they have been doing for the last few weeks and months without penalty.--Filll (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Anthon01 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant articles

No doubt you're aware of many of the articles that should be included in this probation, but I thought I'd offer a little help...Here's a short list of articles that definitely need to be included as homeopathy-based arguments have spilled over:

And maybe these, too:

Perhaps more soon...(?) — Scientizzle 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when WP:AN gets archived, you'll probably want to update the link within Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation so it points to the archived community discussion. (Otherwise, someone will complain.) (Someone will probably complain anyway, but at least we'll have a pointer to the discussion.) --Elkman 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That is why I have been linking to the subpage from everywhere else. That way the link to the discussion only needs to be updated in just one place. Jehochman 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are homeopathy probation tags being placed on non-homeopathy pages and on pages with no history of edit wars. What gives? Who decides what pages are related to homeopathy? Anthon01 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant talk here. The template talk should be the place to contest a specific article being on probation as a central place. Lawrence § t/e 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Any subject connected to homeopathy, broadly construed can be tagged. If there are tagging problems, go to WP:AN so more people can see the discussion. The template talk page should be reserved specifically for questions about the template itself. If an editor with a history of editing homeopathy articles removes a tag, that's probably a bad sign. If a previously uninvolved editor, non-

Article probation notification

You are well-aware that this article is covered under the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Please do not edit war, or you may be placed under an editing restriction, such as revert limitation or topic ban. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)