| Revision as of 08:51, 11 August 2010 editNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits please don't move it to my talk - this is about your behavior← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:09, 11 August 2010 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Very poor judgement: I am not interested in a prolonged discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| ] (]) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | ] (]) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Very poor judgement == | |||
| Jonathon, please refrain from disrupting legitimate appeals when you've strongly advocated against the relaxation of an user's restrictions. It was your responsibility to fully familiarise yourself with the facts of the situation before exercising the poor judgement that you did. ] (]) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : You are going to get yourself blocked if you go around reverting administrator closes on threads. It is disruptive. Brews appeal will surely be heard. Please ask an arbitration clerk to advise Brews on the correct procedure. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are compounding the issue with . An arbitrator already endorsed the main part of the comment I made at the same AE thread (that the appeal is legitimate) - it is already questionable that Stifle made that edit, but it is utterly stupid for you to attempt to close it. Very poor and unsound judgement. ] (]) 08:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've previously been warned not to clerk arbitration pages. Please follow that advice. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please don't talk nonsense and try to move a concern about your judgement to my talk. You have always been advocating to restrict Brews ohare; that would have been fine if you weren't taking actions (or threatening to take actions) in aid of this purpose, particularly when the user has made a legitimate appeal. It is grossly inappropriate. ] (]) 08:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:09, 11 August 2010
 | Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently. |
User talk:Jehochman/Archive index
Forum shopping
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, GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I got the WQA. I had unwatchlisted that other page, and will look now. Jehochman 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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. ChrisO seems intent upon getting himself sanctioned. Jehochman 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? -- ChrisO (talk) 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). Cardamon (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Report them to dev/null for the moment, or to WP:GS/CC if you must, and then to WP:AE once a decision is rendered. Jehochman 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Blablaaa's talk page access
Hi Jehochman. I am wondering why you decided to revoke Blablaaa's talk page access. The reason you gave was "Resumed disruption after unblock, See evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Blablaaa". 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! --Deskana (talk) 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. Jehochman 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 changed 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 told him he can post an unblock request when he actually can't post one due to not having talk page access. Could you elabourate on that? Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 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. Jehochman 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! --Deskana (talk) 14:01, 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. Jehochman 13:56, 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 changed 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 told him he can post an unblock request when he actually can't post one due to not having talk page access. Could you elabourate on that? Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Marshmallow anyone? =P --Dave 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. Jehochman 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! --Deskana (talk) 14:07, 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. Jehochman 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
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. -MBK004 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, GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stay. He is still restricted, and I think that the restriction will not be overturned. Jehochman 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just concerned. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Jehochman 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but with WMC editing GW/CC articles here, 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, GregJackP Boomer! 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. Jehochman 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. GregJackP Boomer! 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain i understand...
...This comment. 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.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. Jehochman 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also all astronomical bodies in the solar system that are of at least hydrostatic equilibrium size. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I lol'd, even though it is at least half-true. NW (Talk) 19:06, 9 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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 6 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 William M. Connolley (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Sorry about the confusion in the steps that got us there. Jehochman 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 ) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks; however, I explicitly committed to ZERO reverts. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hi, since you are the one who started the volunteer list to stop editing CC articles I have some questions that might be helpful here. 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, --CrohnieGal 18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Help requested on ANI
Hello Jehochman, with you as an uninvolved third party, could I interest you to take a look here? Although I must confess that I was a tad heavy-handed but that's explained in there as well, thoughts? --Dave 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- J, how come the silence? Appreciate if you could give me your frank neutral third party opinion, thanks~! --Dave 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. Jehochman 08:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)