Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 1 October 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.

"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,

Your history of interacting with many of these same individuals on fringe and a pattern of them verifying and backing up various claims of yours makes you one of the last people who would have the right to impose such sanctions. I have added you to the ArbCom case because your actions stepped over the line. Your unwillingness to see that ArbCom already had quite a bit of evidence showing that they were acting inappropriately is further troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you don't see the error of your ways. This sort of pugnacious confrontation, filing an arbitration request without even discussing the dispute first, is exactly why you were sanctioned. Jehochman 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Without discussing the dispute? So, three ANI threads, multiple talk pages, and constant interaction with Arbitrators over the matter is not discussing the dispute? Your relationship with the accused along with the above shows that your judgment is compromised. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the accused? What relationship? Hang on a moment and explain things in simple terms from basic principals so I know what you're talking about. Jehochman 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the ArbCom case at all? Or anything at ANI before responding? Since Folantin and Dbachmann were edit warring blanking the Persian Empire page which even Wizardman told them was inappropriate, they have been operating in constantly bullying, meat puppeting, and other inappropriate actions towards myself on multiple pages. However, there is a clear history of them doing such on both RS and Fringe noticeboard. One of these people is Akhilleus, a friend of yours who you have worked with quite often. His name is listed at the ANI page. The claim that -I- am bullying them is from the fact that I submitted evidence of such to various Arbitrators and have been dragging my feet on the matter because I have been focusing on the end of the WikiCup and I did not want to be dragged into a case. However, -you- with your close relationship of Akhilleus and your threat of blocks makes it so I cannot do anything but enter into a case. You want to use your admin authority to claim that I am bullying them when it is clear that it is the other way around, fine. But I am tired of admin acting in such a way and thinking that they can operate like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This messy situation would become a bit less messy, Jehochman, if you'd withdraw the asserted restriction and submit the to the community in the form of a proposal. Durova 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is still an intimidation factor which falls under problematic behavior that the case is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Durova, the matter is being discussed elsewhere. Let's keep the conversation together. Jehochman 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all in one place at RFAR now, so that request is moot at this point. Durova 01:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus

In my evidence I point out that Piotrus has tried to present himself as an uninvolved adminstrator in cases where he actually isn't. This seems especially obvious in the light of the mailing list evidence -- how can he be uninvolved in threads about his fellow team members? Since I've used your diff of warning in my evidence, I think it would be fair if you would comment personally as well. Offliner (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your evidence can stand on its own without my additions. Wow, that was a fairly intrepid warning I issued. Jehochman 07:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Actions

Jehochman, I've seen you on 2 occasions decide someone needs a santion and have unilaterally placed them under some sanction. Under what authority are you allowed to do this without community support? I mean no disrespect but I find it odd you are the only one I've seen issuing content bans without consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, as I am not going to respond by guessing what two incidents you're talking about. It seems like you're repeating something you heard without checking the facts carefully. Jehochman 06:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I witnessed both. User:David Tombe speed of light. and now User:Ottava Rima civility. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

] ]. those are the two specific times I've seen you act without a consensus to my knowledge.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is looking into boh matters. Why don't you post concerns there? I dislike fragmenting a conversation to different pages. Jehochman 06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok.....But you did these before Arbcom handed these down. I'm not comenting on their actions right now.....Specifically I would like to see the policy that gives you authority to this. I am unaware of any policy, however if there is I would gldaly apologize.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A subtle point: Misplaced Pages policy is descriptive, not normative. We write down how things work, not things work the way we write them down. Additionally, administrators have broad authorization to do that which is reasonable and necessary to prevent disruption. In a situation where I could block somebody completely, it is logical that I should be able to give them a lesser sanction, such as a pageban, if leniency is in the best interests of the project. Jehochman 07:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologogize but I will have to bring this to a wider view as I still find the explanation to be lacking. Again I mean this in no offense but to be able to do this without a consesus goes against ikipedia core policies as a collaborative project. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have opened this discussion regarding this matter.]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your comment about my block log. It appears you do have authority subject to consensus when needed. I still feel strongly it sets a dangerous precedent as it would be too easy to sanction someone for disagreeing with you (not you personally). I apologize for any inconvienence. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Re:Gross violations of ethics

Considering that I've been already desysoped, I cannot really resign, can I? I am willing to discuss whether I abused or not my admin powers with the Committee - or with anybody else who can maintain a civil and constructive attitude, acknowledge my mistakes, apologize for them and try to mend whatever harm was done (if any). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand how the mailing list could have spun out of control. It's very easy to go along with a group and unwittingly cross lines. I know you mean well for Misplaced Pages and are only trying to help. Your best bet is to express realization that the list activities were improper, agree to a removal of sysop access (right now it's just temporary), ask to be forgiven for mistakes, and promise to be very mindful of the lessons learned. If you do something like that, you have my word that I will consider there to be no dispute between us going forward. Jehochman 17:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate still seeing some good faith somewhere :) I don't know where there is a place I can really agree or disagree with the removal of my sysop access. While I don't think I have abused admin tools at any point (and I did ask several times in the ongoing discussions for people to point to me if I am wrong here), a lot of discussion seems to be centered on my commenting as uninvolved admin in the AE threads around June/July. At that point I was seeing uninvolvement as not being involved in editing particular articles and/or the level of antipathy (but not sympathy) towards certain users; in retrospective it was a bit naive, as the level of sympathy towards certain users also bias one judgment. I have however agreed to comment in the uninvolved section, and I don't think I forgot about it in my (few) comments at AE since, didn't I? I am certainly willing to go on the record and say that while I might have been offended at your critique than, now I think with regards to me being involved or not you were right and I was wrong. Is there anything else, admin wise, that you'd like to discuss? I am quite open to civil discussion and critique; unfortunately a lot of people commenting at the case seem to be in the pitchfork mode... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you could post what you just said here over at the proposed decision talk page. You could say that you will submit to RFA again at a later time if you want to get your sysop access back. I am sorry people are coming with pitchforks and torches. Part of their anger is motivated by repeated denials and statements that appear to be evasive. If you do something like what I'm suggesting, results for you will be much better, I am confident. My ancestors were from Kracow. Have you ever been there? Jehochman 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I lived there for 5 years :) Beautiful city, you should visit it sometime, a prime touristic attraction of Poland. At this point I am loathe to make any other comment on the arbcom pages (and where should I make such a comment anyway?), but you are welcome to quote or diff me there. Regarding my sysop status, I think ArbCom will make a decision about it, and if they decide it should be removed, and provide an explanation for their rationale, I will certainly try to learn from their suggestions, and will not ask for it to be returned till I think I did so. I wonder if there is some sort of mentorship for better adminship? Perhaps you'd like to review my admin actions and comment on them? I'd certainly appreciate your advice, and you are already somewhat familiar with the case (and as I mentioned earlier, I am certainly impressed by your handling of the situation so far). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimization

I am curious about the possible inclusion of the Search Engine Relation Chart histogram as being appropriate for "history" for this category.

http://www.bruceclay.com/serc_histogram/histogram.htm

Not that the HISTORY section can use a major "image" about the history of inter-se relationships, but this is the only real chart on the subject and is quite frankly known by everyone.

Also, why is education not a part of this page? Seems that the greatest weakness in any "emerging industry" is education, and that is where the major players do come in. Conferences, Books, classroom courses, right down to SEMPO and certification. Maybe a "SEO Education" section (separate linked Main Article?). SES, SMX, PubCon, ad:Tech, Wiley books (mine of course - April 2009) plus others, top classroom and online courses... not to be sales propaganda, but this is definitely education and education is critical to the future of SEO.

The histogram might be a good thing for Search engine too. Unfortunately, we can't use it unless the owner of the diagram releases it under a suitable copyright. I'm not sure about listing conferences and classes. That would be a spam magnet. What is done with other articles about professions, such as accounting or engineering? Jehochman 23:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Answering my own question...Engineering has a section on licensing and certification. We could have a section about professional credentials and standards I suppose. I recommend composing something on the talk page (talk:search engine optimization) as search engine optimization is a featured article. Anything included there should be from a reliable source and well organized. Jehochman 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is your own personal invitation to look into this

• Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Child of Midnight, in effect, spits on the sidewalk and gets blocked. LuLu of the Lotus Eaters edit wars, violates 3RR, runs down the civility level at the Acorn page in his edit summaries (a pattern of behavior he's followed in the past, at the Barack Obama page, for instance) and none of the admins or editors commenting now at ArbCom were commenting back then. Admins coddle one side and hobble the other. It's as clear as day. Some of these diffs are the final comment on discussions.

Now, don't give me piddling wikilawyerish fine points about how no single admin is required to do everything or how different admins have different standards. The fact is that every admin could see the AN/I thread. The fact is that there is no alternate way of interpreting WP:3RR other than that LuLu violated it. The fact is that when one side was complained about, nothing happened. In a clear case. In the CoM case, less clear, admins fall all over themselves to block, without hesitation. Do you have the nerve to tell me that this doesn't look like galling hypocrisy?

I'm not asking you to take any action. I'm asking you to recognize that there is a problem here. -- Noroton (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Worth looking over. -- Noroton (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2c:

• When filing reports you need to take care of accuracy. For instance, above, you linked to acorn, not the actual article in question. This creates the appearance that you are playing fast and loose with the evidence. An admin who sees that is less likely to dig in further.
• You come across as a partisan. Your focus is on tipping the article towards a more conservative viewpoint. LoL seems to be going the other direction. We don't achieve NPOV via a battle of partisans. If instead you focus on an objective like improving the quality grade of the article, and seek outside input from editors across the political spectrum, you are likely to get better results.
• LoL appears to have issues with ownership of that article. It appears to be badly slanted. Most people don't know about ACORN except for the recent video scandal. My opinion as an editor is that the scandal should be reported in the lead. If I'm looking up ACORN, I probably want to know what's going on with that scandal, and expect to find information near the beginning.
• You've reported as 3RR violations incidents that are really something else, WP:OWN violations. Admins looking at 3RR situations tend to have blinders on. You need to take the time to document ownership and report extreme cases at the appropriate venue WP:ANI, and for lesser cases start a request for comments on article content.

I hope this advice helps. Jehochman 09:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help much. I responded to your last comment on my talk page in detail, and that addresses the more important aspects, but here's a response to what you said here:

• I don't see how a simple link problem like Acorn (vs. ACORN, confusingly) can create an appearance of me playing fast and loose with any actual facts. It's a typo-level problem like a grammar mistake. In a clear-cut case, it shouldn't make a difference.
• If I come across as a partisan it's because anyone complaining about any political faction pushing its POV on an article will come across the same way: The complaint about NPOV will always center around the grievance that one POV is being overemphasized in an article while the opposing POV is underemphasized or ignored. Almost no one who shares the POV being pushed thinks the matter is important enough to complain about. That someone has a personal POV is irrelevant, and it should be irrelevant that someone wants that POV in the article. Since, really, we all do. The only relevant thing is how well the article reflects the state of opinion among the most reliable sources. That's usually a hard question to answer, and if you aren't already interested in the topic, it takes some work to answer it. Unless you're willing to do that work (and who could really blame you for not being willing? Life is short), you (as an outside admin or editor) should be agnostic about who is POV pushing and who isn't. The assumption I'm being partisan -- and that's what it is on your part, because you have no evidence -- is really a way to avoid the nub of my complaint because acknowledging the facts of it is uncomfortable for you. It's uncomfortable because it shows what a problem Misplaced Pages has with enforcement of behavioral policies. I go into more detail about that in my response to you on my talk page. If you actually look into the two or three edits I made ont he ACORN page and the comment or two I left on the talk page there, IIRC, they may indicate I want one side better represented in the article, but that doesn't indicate POV pushing any more than it indicates a desire for a good NPOV encyclopedia article. You know that to turn a POV passage into an NPOV one you have to lean in the other direction. That's good, nonpartisan editing. So don't assume when you don't know the facts. What isn't partisan and what admins, including you, can do relatviely easily, is not ignore valid complaints about clear behavioral problems such as 3RR and ongoing patterns of incivility. That's the nub of my complaint. And when you do it with one side, enforce policy with the same level of energy with the other side. That didn't happen, which is why I commented at ArbCom. You haven't addressed that, even though it's the center of my complaint.
• Your third bullet, I agree with, of course. It's pretty common POV editing and the bias there is pretty garden-variety. As I said on my talk page, LuLu doesn't seem to stand out much more than several other editors, but I haven't looked closely. I concentrated on LuLu in my complaint because he was a bit worse than the others and I knew he had a history of the same things. But he doesn't really seem much worse.
• Your fourth bullet is intriguing. I thought I did just what you suggested I do, in both of the 3RR reports. Clear violations, clearly identified, and showing WP:OWN. I'll review my complaints again when I have time, but I don't get what you find wrong with them. Nothing in WP:3RR indicates a revert needs to be simple or remove information in the immediate preceding edit. In fact, I think it specifically states the opposite, which I quoted at AN/I. I thought WP:OWN was obvious, and violations of edit warring don't need to reach the same volume as 3RR itself. How could I have shown this more effectively in my reports? How am I supposed to know how to do this if I'm not familiar with it already and I'm following what's said in the relevant policies and guidelines? I've seen comments in the past at ANI where editors have been told to go to 3RR/N. Frankly, once I did take it to AN/I it shouldn't matter where I took it to first, should it? It could have been dealt with if admins were willing to do so. Admins at AN/I address the real behavior violations all the time and could have done so here. I don't understand how I made that more difficult or what more I could have done to establish WP:OWN. Really -- how do you go about establishing that in a different way than I did? I'll reread WP:OWN, but my impression is that it's more amorphous than 3RR and that kind of complaint involves asking admins to put in more time looking into it. How do you pick and choose what evidence to put into a WP:OWN complaint? It seems to me that that's a harder thing to prove than 3RR and edit warring. I'd really like your advice on that. -- Noroton (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You and Jennavecia seem intent on having a personal discussion about personal failures. Please keep it off ANI. --Tznkai (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you should leave the comments that were made. I will not add to them further. If you remove my concerns about Jennavecia's behavior, I may take the matter elsewhere rather than letting it die. You may also leave her concerns about me, in fairness. Jehochman 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that on balance your conversation was distracting from the core issue and helpful to no one, the least of all the undertow whose situation was caught up in a fight on admin character between two admins - If you wish to continue your concerns with Jennavecia try her talk page, an RfC/U and/or the recall process. Even in the latter case, I suggest waiting until the wound is a bit less raw.--Tznkai (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

She apparently hates my guts, for unknown reasons, so talking is unlikely to be helpful. My experience with the recall process has been very poor. Last time I had an admin recalled (47 signed when 6 were required), the admin refused to step down. No thank you. My concerns are now on the record. Thank you for leaving them there. Jehochman 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Who was the admin you tried to recall? I am also wondering about a comparison of this situation to that of the Arbcom member who was caught with an undisclosed history and some socking. Wasn't it pretty well established that some Arbs know about that history? In fact, we seem to encourage the creating of new accounts with clean histories and yet there is shock when histories are uncovered. The whole thing seems kind of surreal to me. I support more transparency and accountability, but other editors and admins have rejected the idea of encouraging reform and leniency instead of evasion. The unwritten rule seems to be that as long as the new account avoids drama all is forgiven. And only a skilled politician and MMPORG player can stay out of trouble all together on here. There are too many complicated POV pushing cabals and alliances. And admin interventions are often sought to win content disputes. So it's a mess all around. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I now see that an admin should not have knowing supported a sock puppet's RFA - I often disagree with you but I think you are absolutely correct here and I'm astonished people are arguing against you William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is an issue to clarify in policy. Administrators are not required to do anything, but they are required to refrain from knowingly aiding and abetting those who are doing something wrong. Failure to abide by the expected ethical standards may result in loss of administrator access. Jehochman 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon me for butting in (I've watched your talk page since the AN/I that led to Tombe's page ban). Is there really any question that it is not OK for an admin to knowingly support a sock's RfA or other wrongdoing??? Isn't there already policy language to the effect that an admin is held to the highest behavioral standards? The civility RfC revealed a fairly widespread belief that admins routinely apply a double standard that favors other admins and well established editors. I am on record that I do not share that view. However, there are isolated instances where some admins are unduly lenient toward misbehavior by other admins (comparable to the more universal culture of real world cops not "ratting out" cops) or by certain favored misbehaving editors. It does not take very many of those incidents to feed a perception that this is the rule rather than the exception (that is one of the prime bases of prejudice).

I once stumbled into an incident where editor was blocked for willfully vandalizing that day's main page FA (I spotted the vandalism and followed up) because he was angry that his RfA (his second or third) didn't pass. He apologized, blamed the stress of losing the RfA, and promised not to do it again. This block was lifted (which is OK, although sitting out 12–24 hours might have been more equitable) and his block was expunged from his record (I didn't even know that was possible) as were his vandalism edits. I thought that was unjustifiable. If I vandalized some obscure page out of pique, or perhaps the user page of someone who made very offensive remarks, I would be blocked and the block would not be expunged from my record, despite my having a clean record (the would-be admin's record wasn't clean). That is how it should be, and how it should have been for the disappointed would-be admin.

In my opinion, it would be in the long term interest of administrators, as a group, to bend over backward to avoid any appearance of favoritism to fellow admins or their cronies. Enforcement is more difficult if there is a general perception that admins unfairly favor their own—and the perception is more important than the reality (I don't mean an isolated, unjustifiable assumption of bias like Tombe's). That means by holding admins to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary editors, just as experienced editors (like me) should be held to a higher standard than newbies, who understandably don't know our policies and guidelines.

Please pardon the length of this essay. I didn't anticipate this length when I started typing. Finell (Talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have put a summary of the current state of play into Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Obligations. We need to talk about nepotism, and how to prevent it, on a policy level. It may be better to speak in general than to pick on a particular user. Jehochman 19:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Hope you have a peaceful day (or evening?). Finell (Talk) 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was waiting for Risker's opinion on whether an RfArb or an RfC should be the next step before I filed an identical case. This absolutely needed to be done. Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Russavia

Re your topic ban of Radeksz from Russavia, shouldn't that be extended to all of the named respondents in the Arbcom case? Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I am a minimalist. Until somebody else causes trouble, there is no need for action. Jehochman 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'm sure Russavia will report any harassment at AN/I if it happens. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope Jehochman won't mind me posting here. I see no reason to extend anything to other participants in the case at this point, so long as the Arbcase is running. This goes to both me and others. Cheers, --Russavia 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

C:SD and NewPages need patrolling. BLPs need protection from libel, or even just categorization. Material needs to be sourced. Neutrality must be fought for. There's stuff to do out there. Given that your last 100 edits have been drama-only, would you please consider actually working on the encyclopedia? JamieS93 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, did somebody suggest you post here? Please look through more of my 24,000+ edits before you jump to conclusion. Check out the featured articles I've worked on, most recently Gamma-ray burst. The current one in progress is 2009 influenza pandemic. It is not "drama" to expose and attempt to correct wrongdoing that threatens dozens of articles. When a group of editors work together to subvert consensus and deceive the community, that is a serious problem. Jehochman 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

'It is not "drama" to expose and attempt to correct wrongdoing that threatens dozens of articles' - which articles are threatened here? "When a group of editors work together to subvert consensus..." What consensus has been subverted? Thanks, Majorly talk 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)