User talk:Jehochman - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Albion moonlight (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 11 February 2008 (→Sockpuppet conspiracy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:37, 11 February 2008 by Albion moonlight (talk | contribs) (→Sockpuppet conspiracy: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

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-

The following is strictly my personal opinion, but it may contain some elements that can be informative:

In the beginning I didn't understand why the template should be placed on articles that obviously were not homeopathic articles, but later I read a comment that made more sense. It appears that the template and article probation are designed to make it easier to reign in homeopathic POV advocates (advocacy is forbidden here), and anyone who is disruptive in any manner related to homeopathy edits and discussions, IOW anywhere it happens at Misplaced Pages. In short it makes it easier for admins to stop fires and keep them from spreading. Here is a list of where the template is currently being used.

Therefore the template follows the numerous attempts by these POV pushers and advocates to insert homeopathy into all kinds of (often unrelated) articles, especially when those attempts are often used as an excuse by the author (an editor) to suggest (on talk pages) that the author's own book about homeopathy and his website be used as a source. Such attempts have resulted in many edit wars and fires getting started on articles that aren't normally associated with homeopathy. Although homeopathic drugs have no calories or active ingredients, the subject certainly provides plenty of fuel for these fires! Therefore the template follows the slightest mention of the subject of homeopathy, no matter where it comes up. It is a sort of "whack a mole" thing that is designed to curb edit wars wherever these attempted inclusions occur. It applies to editors of all persuasions. -- Fyslee / talk 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Supercomplixcated code

What's the supercomplixcated code for 80% font size? El_C 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Code such as <span style="font-size:0.8em">smaller text</span> should produce smaller text. "Em"s are relative to the size of the parent element, so 0.8em is 80% the size of the parent element. Jehochman 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Demonstration of relative sizing: smaller text

This also a good way to make text bigger. Jehochman 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

→Thanks! Noted for future reference. El_C 10:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate ban

Hi Jehochman -- I don't want to get all dramatic, and I like your efforts to keep things cool at the volcano that Talk:Homeopathy has become, but I think it was a very bad call for you to topic-ban User:Art Carlson. His conduct -- calmly expressing a defensible opinion, and making a single edit -- is not grounds for banning. Basically, it sounds like you banned him because you disagree with his assessment of the quality of sources. Reasonable people can disagree on that, especially when they're physics PhD's, like Art is.

Art was not arguing whether or not homeopathy is pseudoscience, but rather whether or not the sources given reached the threshold of scientific consensus. That's based on WP:NOTTRUTH and well-established. His argument, which I have echoed and believe is sound, is based firmly on policy: WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience and WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus. He explained it fine in the diffs you cited, which if anything should be cited as a model of balance and calmness, not ban-sticked, fer cryin' out loud. The issue of source-quality for the article issue is ongoing, and it's appropriate and inevitable that it will be discussed. For example, you weighed in repeatedly on Quackwatch, yet nobody topic-banned you; and of course, no one should have.

The issue of category:pseudoscience is now pretty much laid to rest, IMO, thanks to the sci-consensus source that another editor recently posted. But it's not cool to topic-ban an editor for conduct as unremarkable as Art's was, all the more given that he's an expert editor with a distinguished edit history.

Art's a big boy and I doubt this is going to be a giant buzzkill for him, but still, I hope you do the right thing and reverse the ban. Things get overheated and we all make mistakes; not a big deal. all the best, Jim Butler (t) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Please reconsider. From what I read here.COuld you also tell me your opinion whether or not according to wiki policy controversial articles should be tagged with labels like pseudoscience? I have posted a question in the talk page. Thank again.Best.--Area69 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Best.--Area69 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for using category:pseudoscience are given at WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Jehochman, do you see that "generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community" requires a source, and a particular type of source? regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well this the same argument I have been having on that page when I was summarily banned. Anthon01 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, don't delude yourself -- there is a large difference in the way you presented your evidence and the way Art presented his. You were rightfully banned, Art was not.

Jonathan, I agree with Jim, you need to reconider your ban, and in my opinion should reverse it. Over-reactions, which is a word that I think best sums up your ban of Art, are not helpful. Jim62sch 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about undoing it early because he hasn't been the least bit disruptive since then, which gives me hope that things will be well in the future. Okay, let's try. Jehochman 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool... really glad you did that. all best, Jim Butler (t) 05:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If I'm wrong you can always wiki-slap me and say "see, I was right" -- or something like that. :) Jim62sch 23:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Blackamoor

I was responding to an event that occurred before the banned was put in place. He posted an AN/RfA against me and I had just notice that it had been dismissed. Most of that section existed before the ban. I will refrain from commenting more on his talk page. He has been commenting freely on my talk page on a related manner. Anthon01 (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My advice is somewhat universal. Parties involved in a conflict should try to avoid giving each other warnings, because those often result in accusations of vexatious litigation or abuse of process. Jehochman 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the sound advice. Do you consider this inappropriate? I would like to point you to this diff.] I will willingly comply with whatever recommendations you make. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medical systems infobox

We used to have that on the page, months ago, if I am not mistaken.--Filll (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Any reason it was taken off? It seems like an obvious, non-controversial improvement, and it might end the pseudoscience box warring. Jehochman 16:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I do not rememeber. It might have been merely an aesthetics issue.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are aesthetic concerns, my HTML skills are not bad. Feel free to ask for help. It seems like adding a proper menu would help to stabilize the article. Jehochman 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no complaints with it. I think Wikidudeman removed it, but he is no longer involved.--Filll (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

your comment

I noticed an editor deleted matertial from the article. I went to the talk page and gave a chance to others to provide the appropriate references. Please explain your comment. Quack Guru 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Please explain yourself, with regards to this statement. Are you implying that I purposefully came to the COI board simply to cause trouble? Since you currently one of the admins overseeing the Homeopathy case, you need to explain why you resorted to such a stunning lack of good faith in making the comment, yet still see yourself as capable of being impartial on the case. Baegis (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, my comment was not directed towards you. Sorry for the confusion. I will endeavor to be clearer in the future. Jehochman 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for rectifying the problem. I appreciate your promptness. I struck out my comments. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the notice. Anthon01 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rot

Your first claim was "he hasn't been invited to participate, thus I'm closing the thread." Now it is "that was a request for information, not an appeal, so I'm closing the thread", when the diff clearly indicates that he was notified some time ago, and the request had been made on AN. To say that "since he asked for reasons, it wasn't an appeal" is pretty blatant wikilawyering. Bad form. If you want to minimise drama, that sort of niggling isnt the way to do it. Relata refero (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to editors being complaints to AN/ANI without first attempting to work out disagreements. This is an essential requirement, not mere wikilawyering. Jehochman 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in this case, where a mandated article restriction is in effect. The purpose of doing it in a centralized manner is precisely so that everybody can keep an eye on what's going on. Relata refero (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI is for incidents that require administrator intervention. There is no reason to use ANI for asking East718 to explain their actions, unless the poster wishes to stir up drama and apply pressure. Those are not appropriate reasons for posting to ANI, hence my criticism. Jehochman 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But, dash it, he posted originally to AN! You moved it to AN/I! And AN is specifically mentioned in the probation requirements! Relata refero (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved it because there was another ANI thread already, and I thought it was an appeal, not a request for info. This user has been promulgating a vast number of threads, which is regrettable. Jehochman 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you may have had good reasons, but it is absurd for you to then blame him for opening a thread at AN/I to create drama, when he opened a thread at AN as he was supposed to. Relata refero (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But because he has been civil about it all, it paralyses the system, doesn't it? How about you just warn him for DE and TE? O, but then you end up in East's shoes, and the civil POV-pusher gets rewarded. O well, all rods of your own creations unfortunately... Shot info (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been asking for an explantion since Saturday morning. Its more than 48 hours and no respoonse yet. What do I do now? Anthon01 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, i take offense to your characterization of me as a POV-pusher. Anthon01 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, it's expected, you take offence at all sorts of things. Feel free to forum shop and add to your already large and unweildy number of threads however. Shot info (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you put the encyclopedia first, and your personal preferences second, nobody will accuse you of POV pushing. If you are here to write an encyclopedia, go pick a random article and work on it. Develop your skills and learn how Misplaced Pages works. If I were banned from any one, ten or one hundred articles, it would not bother me at all. I would go work on something else. We have more than a million articles. Jehochman 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please talk frankly about the uncivil use of "POV Pusher"? It is to my understanding per WP:POVPUSH that describing another editor as such is never civil. Everyone please refrain. -- Levine2112 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My goal is to help develop alt-med articles of the encyclopedia. These areas are prone to be contentious. I was summarily banned. It would have been helpful if an admin, like you, would have warned me with clear admonishions (as you are doing now on the H talk page) before being banning. Without the benefit of an clearer explanation or review of my ban, moving to other alt-med articles puts me in the same position of being summarily banned again, perhaps for a longer period of time. This is the major reason I am asking for clarification. Anthon01 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The other alt med articles are not subject to article probation, so you need not worry so much over them. Just be polite, and do not push too hard, and you will be fine. When you return to homeopathy, recognize that it is a minefield, and use extra care to read the relevant policies before editing, and attempt to gain consensus without resorting to legal-style arguments. I hope this helps. Jehochman 15:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking toward the future

It might be a good idea if, using the lessons learned on Homeopathy, we could develop a better guideline on exactly what is and isn't kosher on pages under probation. We all seem to be floundering a bit, unsure of what's cool and what isn't. Just a thought. Jim62sch 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is quite easy, really:

Do not editwar;
Be nice to others;
Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
No much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;
We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
So don't get worked up when you get dinged. Take a break and come back refreshed.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but let's codify it. Jim62sch 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This probation business is giving too many editors itchy trigger fingers with no objective foundation. (I agree with Adam Cuerden's comments here). --Jim Butler (t) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's get started then. I set up User:Jim62sch/article_probation_guidelines for it. My typing skills are abyssmal now as my right wrist is broken, so it might be good if you did the set-up. Jim62sch 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

editing restrictions

What's the deal with wp:probation being superseded by wp:editing restrictions? There's nothing on either talk page regarding why this came about. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

...do ips get ignored? From the talk pages it seemed like you would know about it. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

References section on the Talk:Homeopathy page

I have been unsuccessful in getting a references section on the Talk:Homeopathy page to work. Any suggestions? A references section works fine on the Talk:Chiropractic page, but not on the Talk:Homeopathy page. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is one already, in the middle of the page. Two will not work. Look for {{reflist}} or <references/> in the code. Jehochman 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Better not to move it

Because I've filed several RFCU and SSP files on them in one month, some of them are infinitely blocked. However, I can't prevent the determined socks from altering information without proof. And the checkuser who've looked at the files said my filing become an abuse of RFCU. I actually didn't expect at ANI at all because everyone thinks that it is just a matter of contents dispute, but it is not. I'm getting to lose my belief on English Misplaced Pages. --Appletrees (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try to help you. Is an article being attacked by multiple IPs? If so, give me the names of the articles and I will semi-protect them. Jehochman 16:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for caring this. The article the anons recently have attacked is Koreans in Japan. But unless their ips are blocked, they(he) can create as many account as he seems to need. One of his purposes for doing this is just to make me violate 3RR. He seems to have a deep grudge against me because I made them blocked--Appletrees (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

As an outsider knowing the obvious problems going on there I wanted to bring to your attention that after reading this article I came away with not knowing what the heck is considered Homeopathy. I don't understand all the squabbling going on but to me the article is supposed to tell someone like me what it is and what it isn't and it doesn't do either in my opinion. Maybe while you are getting editors to focus you can get them to focus on writing the article to show people what homeopathy is (and isn't.) I thought this was the reason for articles in the first place but I don't see this article standing up to even the worse articles I've been to. This is just a suggestion since I know you are one of the editors watching the pages there to try to get things under control. I am totally flabbergasted by some of the behavior and arguments going on there. Anyways, thanks for listening and I hope my coming here and posting this is alright with you. I will study on my own to see what homeopathy is. Just for the record, I think I posted once on the talk page when things were out of control and suggested that everyone give their keyboards a rest and reread the talk page and the article again. Of course I was told basically no. But I was just trying to calm the waters there. Again thanks for listening to me. --CrohnieGal 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep watching, and please feel free to chime in when people start bickering, and ask them to stop. Jehochman 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have it on my wathpage mainly out of curiousity. I will try to help out. I know it's a big job and think Jossi got a bad deal out of it. :( --CrohnieGal 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in Homeopathy

Hello Jehochman:

I'm far from being an important editor in homeopathy, but I do try to help.

Lately, the discussion page has been overflowing with multiple, mostly unrelated conversations about the wording of the lead section. I was involved in one where there seemed to be progress being made. Then I found there were other conversations in other sections, going in different directions. Is there any way, under the article probation, bring in a more structured way of organizing the discussion? (On a trial basis.)

The other concern I have now is that editor Addhoc took one of the numerous versions of the lead that are in the talk, and put it into the article, replacing what was there. Strikes me as a disruption of the process.

I bet you are really sick of homeopathy by now.

Thanks for listening. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS Did you know there are homeopathy jokes?

Patient on telephone, "Doctor, Doctor, I've got this terrible pain!" Doctor says, "Take two aspirin in a million gallons of water, and see me in the morning."

Did you hear about the new cure for dehydration? You just take one of these pills with three glasses of water. Jehochman 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

are these appropriate?. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't talking to me but I am going to give an opinion. I think the whole conversation is totally rude and since I know the beginning of the feud and tried to calm the waters unsuccessfully, something should be done to stop the attacks against Ronz ASAP. He just tries to follow policy and really knows it well. I want to admit that Ronz helped me understand policy when I first arrived around Jan. 2007. I also have had contact with the other two. I try to stay polite at all times and at all costs. I just want to be up front with this information which can obviously be checked out at my contributions. --CrohnieGal 18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

I have responded to your request for diffs on the homeopathy/I page. Anthon01 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I am not an administrator so....

Would you please check out the back and forth between these two? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Chiropractic&curid=197022&diff=190008123&oldid=190002379 Thanks, --CrohnieGal 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Twinkle use

Is Twinkle allowed to be used for reverting and/or edit wars? I don't have Twinkle but it's being used for this. The latest place was at and this was at least the second time TW was used for this revert. I don't have Twinkle so I don't know if this is right or wrong do I am bringing it to the attention of an administrator, you! :) I thought it was supposed to be used for policy things not things like this. I appreciate your time, --CrohnieGal 17:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The tool isn't the problem so much as the behavior. Reverting isn't the way to make progress. Jehochman 18:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

More stuff for you to (not) deal with.

. It's just an administrator with a user account under their real name under duress being cursed by an adminstrator at while they try to leave wikipedia and get their name off of it, so it's worth ignoring - it's not like some random user with no edit history were being treated incivilly - that would be a DISASTER! Even worse is if sockpuppets of banned users were being treated wrongly. That might call for a fullscale RIOT! PouponOnToast (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2008

You are so right, the behavior at ANI, ARB etc is totally rude. --CrohnieGal 20:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend deleting uncivil remarks. That's what I've done. Jehochman 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken wikibreak

Thanks for the advice, but I'm going to break my wikibreak and post anyway. A post to Guy's talk page first, and then more later if needed. The declined block review has got me so annoyed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that went better than I thought it would. Maybe the way to avoid drama is to post such large amounts that no-one bothers to reply at a similar length? :-) Thanks for the point about checkuser. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That is classic. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice essay

Good job of writing up Geogre's comment at Misplaced Pages:Ping pong! I just tweaked it a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Free Republic ArbCom Finding

Unfortunately, the ArbCom passed a rather toothless version of the sanction. From the General Sanctions page, here's the exact finding that leads me to my viewpoint on this issue.

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources.The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

I've bolded the relevant section. Hindsight, of course is 20/20 :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a motion for them to upgrade the sanction to the latest, standard article probation wording. They may do so. There's no reason to tolerate abuse. Jehochman 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done on the main RfArb page, if you want to support me :D SirFozzie (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet conspiracy

Something arbcom needs to know about.....