Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 10 October 2009 (→Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jehochman (father of a 8lb 9oz male newbie) is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

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.

Your stance

You posted at RFAR today (summarized to make the comparison more blunt):

"admins ... knowing full well that the account had been used ... motivation appears to have been close friendship with the operator... I think this was a gross abuse of trust... I call upon the Committee to remove sysop access... The facts are clear cut... Do we tolerate subversion of our policies by popular insiders?"

1. Was this your view 2 months ago, in relation to the evidence of concealment of sock-puppetry by an admin, at this case?
2. Please reconcile your strong view on admin socking concealment (above and today) in the case of Jennavecia and GlassCobra, with your dismissal of identical or more serious concerns at the RFC.

In three ways worse: Geogre was an admin, not merely applying to be one; he was actively stacking and abusing, whereas the undertow had behaved well for months; and the stacking directly benefited the concealing party, whereas the_undertow's did not.

FT2  00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I said, I don't think the subject of this RFC will feel that there has been good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. RFC is not to be used for personal feuds, and many experienced users are aware that FT2 and Bishonen don't get along. It would be better to seek informal mediation of the Concerns, and if an RFC is then needed, it would be better to have somebody besides FT2 certify. As it stands now, this page is likely to generate more heat than light. As for Geogre socking and everything else, I took no position. Furthermore, Geogre was not engaging in block evasion, nor was he previously de-admined, nor did Bishonen nominate or support him at RFA. The situations are not parallel at all. As I've said all along, admins have no obligation to report; they have an obligation not to falsify or support somebody's attempt at deception. Whether Geogre was socking is not even something I clearly understood. Probably others didn't understand either. I did not know Utgard Loki was Geogre. I'm square; people don't let me in on any sort of juicy gossip.

Had Law not engaged in nepotism by unblocking his mate CoM out of process, none of this would have come to the surface. But Law did that, very foolishly, drew attention and got caught. Then Jennavecia and GlassCobra were too proud to admit their errors, and Casliber had to resign. The injustice of this situation is unbearable. Jehochman 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FT2 and Bishonen have a past? This I did not know. Apologies, Hochman, I'm got here stalking the conspiracy theorist FT2, and lo, I find what I forgot from the Rfc on Bish; now I recall you mentioning that. This is getting more tangled and absurd by the minute, and its due to FT2, an ex-Arb who should know better, muddying the waters with foul allegations about something from months past, trying to character smear both of us... why? To protect Lara and Glass Cobra? Seems unlikely. Vendetta because his Rfc was shot down? Seems... childish. Xavexgoem and Cirt have been above that. It must be something else; but what possible reason he has for dragging this in escapes me. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction, Jehochman. You're quoting your second post, kinda omitting the background.

Your first post at RFC at worst attempted to mislead the community, impede the case, and protect the party, and at best they were irreconcilably inconsistent with what evidence says you actually knew and believed. You knew conclusively most of your statement points were not so. You did not speak to the evidence, posted knowingly misleading negative/negative-sounding statements represented as authoritative fact, and omitted all aspects of your own positive knowledge.

After I asked you in effect "wtf", you replaced the blatant assertions with the post you quoted, which was superficially more reasonable but still improperly slanted for any kind of communal review. Careful review shows it still contradicted the evidence on key points, and also omitted any semblance of balance on aspects you actually knew beyond doubt, from your own knowledge.

Admins are expected to undertake their role at dispute resolution with care, impartially, and to helpfully inform the community with insight on the evidence, if they choose to involve themselves in a case.. You did none of these.

You admitted separately (exact quote posted if permission given) that the evidence was actually reasonable and might indeed even be 100% correct. I do not pretend to understand these actions.

In either case you also treated with dismissal, the matter you now say is so wrong (in a lesser case) as to require desysopping. Why?

My questions #1 and #2 stand. In light of the present matter, please answer them. FT2  01:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You know very well I amended my opinion. Choosing an intermediate diff that was soon changed is not an honest way to deal. Please, don't bring feuds here. I'm not a minion of Bishonen. Your disagreements with her should not be transferred to me. Otherwise, I am not going to respond to your assumptions of bad faith and presumptions about what I knew or thought. You do not have access to my mind; stop making assumptions that are wrong and tainted. Jehochman 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, what does this have to do with the current case? Nothing. I actually AGF'd and thought you might actually have a concern, FT2; but that is rapidly fading at the increasing evidence you're just trying to pick a fight and drag up an old, dead Rfc from two months ago where you didn't get your way. Your vendetta is showing; I suggest you move on to new venues and new pursuits. I would think FT2 would be ashamed of muddying the waters with his sour grapes, rather than making lame accusations far past their expiration date. Hochman, I apologize for butting in; I'm done with this nonsense. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 02:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Back then the things you obviously knew and the things said, did raise concerns. For example, you did not disclose your knowledge in a balanced manner. You withheld positive knowledge, posted only negative material. You swapped "X is bad" for "some users may think X is bad". You admitted you didn't read the evidence. You didn't respect that concerns were raised by multiple highly experienced users (not just myself) and in fact didn't seem to notice others had concerns even though diffs were given.

Today you posted an RFAR based on a very strong stance, a stance that you didn't appear to consider important enough to consider worth attention just 2 months ago in a recent RFC.

The striking dismissal then and switch to a strong "must-desysop!" now, is today identically mirrored by the same admin both times, who both times posted directly after you, and who also appears to be unwilling to say if their stance was the same or has changed (and is posting unhelpful and ominous posts on this thread).

I'm asking your stance on admins concealing socking to be clear where you really stand, and to check explicitly whether you would hold the same view in all such cases, and regardless of party. You can see why that might be relevant, given you just filed an RFAR on the subject against two admins. I hope that explains it. A quick and definitive answer to the first post, clarifying exactly whether your views then and now are the same on the point of principle, would be good. FT2  04:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Begging the question

There is not inconsistency, other than what you imagine to see by assuming the worst.

I have always said that friends are not required to rat on friends. My objection is that friends (esp admins) may not lie to cover for friends. It is a lie to knowingly nominate a sock for adminship and not disclose that highly relevant fact.

What lie occured with Geogre, other than Geogre carelessly crossing the stream with an alternative account? Show me a diff of Bishonen lying? You can't. Please take your feuds with her elsewhere. Jehochman 10:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement: "It is a lie to knowingly nominate a sock for adminship and not disclose that highly relevant fact".

I and others have a concern that a similar "lie" took place a little while ago (admin concealing socking by a wiki friend to admin's advantage in a dispute). You may disagree that this is what happened (that's your right) but you didn't check the evidence nor report your own knowledge in a fair balanced manner in the discussion. You claim a "feud" that never got evidenced (and that you elsewhere say that you know actually doesn't exist, but in public you allege it does). You ignored all evidence but you're sure nothing was done wrong. You ignored that it was several experienced admins with concerns, not just one.

So I am not asking your view on the past case. I'm simply asking about your stance on this aspect of the RFAR you just filed, given the past incident: was your stance 2 months ago (that admins who knowingly conceal socking should be desysopped) as strongly held then as now? Yes? or No? FT2  14:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will answer this question when you stop beating your wife. You are mis-stating my position and then demanding a yes/no answer. I've told you already to stop begging the question. Look up what that means. Jehochman 14:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't stated your position on the question, though, have I. You can say "yes it's the same", "no it's changed"; neither is assumed in the question. Of course it may lead to a concern over consistency of conduct given that stance -- but that's something you may or may not wish to explain.

I'm after a straight answer about what you feel then and now, if it were to come to light that an admin concealed socking, and clarity whether your view's the same or changed since that case. A straightforward question. FT2  14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always said that friends are not required to rat on friends. My objection is that friends (esp admins) may not lie to cover for friends. It is a lie to knowingly nominate a sock for adminship and not disclose that highly relevant fact. That's my position. You seem to think Bishonen did wrong (misprison of felony). As volunteers nobody is required to act, except perhaps functionaries and arbitrators. There is a difference between seeing and not recognizing, or seeing and not acting versus knowing and affirmatively covering up. Big difference. Jehochman 15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We may differ on whether the subject of that RFC "knew about admin socking and affirmatively covered up". As you didn't bother to read the evidence, your view is probably uninformed, and I'm not asking what you feel about that person or case. I'm asking about the principles you have on it and their consistency over time:

If an admin had "known about admin socking and affirmatively covered it up" at that time (which would clearly need to be well evidenced), would you back then have felt as strongly about the principle as you said at RFAR, that that admin should be desysopped? FT2  15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FT2, you seem to be trying to determine a current issue here by crude oversimplification and a contrived dualism. The place to resolve this is in community discussion of the current circumstances. As for consistency between then and now, at that stage you seemed to consider it to be wrong for an admin to allow admin sock-puppetry of a friend to stand undisclosed, and felt that high standards of conduct are integral to adminship. If you think these standards are being met by the conduct of the admins who knowingly nominated and canvassed for the adminship of a sockpuppet of a friend who had been subjected to community sanctions, I'm very disappointed in you. . . dave souza, talk 15:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FT, I see the George situation as very different. I didn't know Geogre was Utgard, but if I'd crossed his path I'd have known instantly, because he was making no attempt to hide, and Geogre is a very distinctive writer. His sin was thoughtlessness. He wasn't looking at the situation from the point of view of those not in the know. But he wasn't banned, hadn't been desysopped, didn't try to gain tools for Utgard.

In the Undertow situation, we have a user banned for harassment, and desysopped for some other reason, who had been behaving oddly anyway. His return to adminship, and his lying at RfA, is facilitated by at least one Arb, at least one functionary, and numerous admins. And why? Because they were friends on IRC/Wikipedia Review. In addition, one of the facilitators tried to get oversight, and the Arb did nothing to stop her.

That is serious corruption (well, it's serious insofar as anything on WP is). It's not comparable to Geogre's goofing around. SlimVirgin 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In the present RFAR, I certainly have deep concerns that I've expressed at that page. Whether very bad misjudgment or willful dismissal of community expectations (the former potentially excusable, the latter far worse) I've said my view on it.

The same admins who presented and first endorsed the case, with extremely strong wording how any knowing concealment of admin socking should be desysopped, are the exact same two who (together) stepped in to impede a discussion on an identical principle and concern, raised not just by myself but by others too. In that case it seems both took actions whose effect was to prevent any productive discussion.

What do these two admins really believe about admins who abet or knowingly conceal socking? Are their strong words at RFAR real or sincere? Even more seriously, do they truly believe their words, or does it depend on who the party is (noting: each of them defended their behavior back then by personality-based argument not factual evidence).

So I asked each to clarify their stance. That was my sole question. Each could have answered in very few words: "Yes, I believed then what I have said now"... or "yes I believe completely that knowing concealment should be desysoppable but I don't know if that was the case back then", or even "No, my view was different back then". No tricks, only straight answers sought.

But both are evading which (as you'll remember from our own dialogs last year) tends to encourage re-asking until an answer is given. You did the same then as I am now, and I don't blame you for it either, it was fair even if discomfiting. One expects answers from admins whose conduct is a concern. These are my concerns. I'd like answers that directly answer the question asked, not some question I didn't ask. FT2  22:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM

I'm still confused by the Law / The undertow / CoM connection. You say Had Law not engaged in nepotism by unblocking his mate CoM out of process - what evidence is there for them being "mates"? I don't know; people have said various things; CoM has made ambiguous denials. Is this another one of those "open secrets" that aren't? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's another open secret. Not all the evidence is public. I believe the unblock of CoM was politically motivated and not justified on the merits. Jehochman 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well is *any* of the evidence public? If so I'd like to be pointed at it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to look at the editing history of both. They appear to be part of the same far right POV group. CoM is topic banned from Obama. The undertow was de-admined over some sort of related issue. I know what, but I'm not going to say here. Jehochman 10:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I've highly respected your general efforts for admins to keep integrity, but please do not spread such false assessment to the desysoped former admin. There is no "open secret" about such the bogus allegation. Although I strongly feel disgusted by the whole lying by User:Law and his "admins friends", you should not mix non-existent things with the matter. I don't know what political stance Law has, but they often edit on Bacon or food-related articles that is in my interest as a WP:FOOD member. The "Bacon Cabal" has been promoted by DYK and many others, so you should retract such false accusation and insinuation that CoM and Law shares political agendas, so they collided for Sandstein's absurd blocking for one month. --Caspian blue 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually all the evidence is public. I had no off wiki communication with Law prior his unblocking me except to wish him well in August when he announced his retirement, and I had no interactions on or off-wiki, nor was I even aware of existence of an account named The Undertow (as far as I can recall). So if you gentlement care to correct your aspersions and smears I would be appreciate it. The only POV I push is NPOV. Check it out! Good stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I just checked my e-mail history and I was mistaken. I had been in contact with Law via e-mail when I sent him a note to wish him well when he retired at the end of August. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, CoM, I will strike any other incorrect statements you point out or that I find. Thank you for the correction. Jehochman 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am also not part of any "far right" POV group. I'm not really part of any group and am a strong opponent of cabalism and teaming up. Going solo has been tough, especially in contentious areas where there is cabalism and coordination by POV pushing editors, but I try to lead by example and hold myself to high standards. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please link

your proposal here. Thanks KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to check it out, but I'm not sure where it's located. Thanks, hmwith☮ 16:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Meta_Request:_Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA. This process would serve everyone, including the "accused". They deserve a clear up or down result: either remove their bits or clear them of wrongdoing. They should not be left in limbo. Jehochman 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Flu pandemic GA

From what I can tell, the only major thing remaining that the reviewer brought up is to report what the CDC did in the course of "tightening up" any "gaps" in the health system over the summer. (If a reply is necessary, please do so on my talk.) --Cybercobra (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Request clarification

Hi, you make an interesting and detailed proposal here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case.

The process sounds like it would be effective, but it might take a great deal of ArbCom's resources, etc. I don't think that this sort of process would be a great precedent for future events in itself.

But I'm wondering, are you suggesting that this could be a first step in establishing a community-conducted process for admin-bit recall? If so, it sounds promising, but I'd like to see your thinking spelled out a little more detail in the proposal. -Pete (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be the basis for future community de-adminship proceedings. ArbCom has always said that they want to have the final word. So be it. There are two types of de-adminship requests: 1/ abuse of tools, which is easily handled by existing arbitration procedures, and 2/ loss of community trust. ArbCom can only gauge loss of trust by actually asking the community for input. RFC tends to be a free wheeling process, prone to drama, ambiguity and open endedness. By having ArbCom as a gatekeeper before the process starts, a fixed time limit, and ArbCom to judge the results upon conclusion, I think we solve a great many problems. Please do help write up a proposal! It is very important that this process can only be triggered if ArbCom finds that there is a reasonable doubt. We don't want admins being harassed by frivolous claims against them. Jehochman 00:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA

Hi Jehochman,

I see that you are supporting a desysopping now after suggesting a text of motion on administrator professionalism on my talk page. Can you please clarify you position? Thanks. -- FayssalF - 15:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have ambivalent feelings. On the one hand I would very much like to forgive people and set standards going forward. On the other hand I am concerned that: 1/ ArbCom cannot make policy, and 2/ we are being played the fools. In particular Jennavecia has not even posted a response (I must be beneath notice), and she has been highly defiant, stating that everything she did was correct and she would do it again. In lieu of a motion, I would favor the ArbCom-RFC hybrid that I proposed here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Meta_Request:_Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA. A motion would be my second choice. Thank you for your time. The ArbCom has many challenges at the moment and I feel sorry to add to your burdens. Jehochman 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A stray comment regarding this subject: Isn't it funny that

Expecting accountability and justice = DRAMAZ

yet

False martyrdom = NOT DRAMAZ?

Auntie E. 20:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Funny that. Oh help me, help me, I'm being crucified. Jehochman 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Flu pandemic GA "gap-patching"

I wish you the best of luck in your research! --Cybercobra (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Misplaced Pages and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock policy

Hello -- regarding WP:Sock, please see the linked poll if you had not before. To say editors "should" do this is to create an obligation that clearly does not have consensus. To disclose has been recommended at times for specific reasons, at best, but can't be stated as an obligation without broad agreement that clearly doesn't exist. In any case, please pursue the point on the talk page if you disagree. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Should is different from must. Remember that policy is descriptive of what happens, not the other way around. As a practical matter, if an editor is found to be operating more than one account, undisclosed, they are at great risk of being sanctioned for sock puppetry if they have ever accidentally "crossed the streams" of their edits. I'd rather warn people to disclose than let them get burned later. By the way, I've always felt that you were somebody's alternate account. I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing at all, but if I happen to be right, would you tell me? Thanks! Jehochman 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I find that a little amusing since you're not the first to suggest it, but no (I have been checkusered to high hell, so rest assured I am disclosed in any case). Call it luck that I managed to jump right into the thicket, not knowing that Misplaced Pages even had a community, as it happens. But let me clarify that I would not be involved in community discussions if I were, and if so you would be more than right to be concerned. I am very much opposed to any "crossing of streams," very broadly construed (certainly to include any second account participating in community discussions other than where is extremely transparent); in fact it is one reason why I am concerned with changing policy not to focus on this kind of deception, to explain what's wrong with it, and to be very clear that this is not allowed. I've always thought you were pretty reasonable, btw, except a few times when I haven't :)

That said, my concern here is that we should not suggest an obligation for editors who really are not being controversial at all. Maybe it's skepticism that editors violate these community norms inadvertently, but what I see is some clearly destructive behavior and some clearly non-destructive. I think improvements will come with greater clarity about what is what, but not by conflating the two, or by suggesting that back-room disclosure solves the problem. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a hard problem and none of us are completely sure how to deal with it. Thank you for your thoughts. You seem a little sockish because of your username, I think. That's probably what people pick up on. Your "voice" also seems familiar; not sure why. Happy editing, Jehochman 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My user name? It's a nickname in Swedish, that's also slang for "sandwich." "The sandwich," actually, since they don't separate the definite article. Did I miss something? Mackan79 (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah that's it. I probably figured you for a Bishonen sock. She's got so many I can hardly keep track of 'em all. :-) Jehochman 04:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The one who lost his sense of humor? I sent you an email, anyway, feel free to check. Mackan79 (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ingo Jones drawing.jpg

File:Ingo Jones drawing.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ingo Jones plan for a new palace at Whitehall 1638.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on other WP pages by Physchim62

Physchim62 has undertaken to interrupt discussion of a proposal concerning use of the one-line Edit Summary here. This interruption is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the RfC, and interferes with a normal WP process. It seems pretty clear to me that dragging the Case/Speed of light into a perfectly simple RfC is not relevant to the separate issue of how to use a one-line Edit Summary, and the phrasing "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience" is inflammatory. I believe that (i) Physchim62 should be harshly reminded to keep his gibes to himself, and (ii) this comment of his should be reverted. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Littleolive oil & User:Rd232 agree with me on the nature of this contribution. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, you can give them barnstars or high fives. They are not going to save you from ArbCom imposed editing restrictions. You need to listen to feedback and change your editing style for the better. Jehochman 17:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Premature of closure of debate

Hi, Jehochman. I think you were a little hasty in closing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Proposed_addition_to_WP:Civil after only 3 hours - in fact I'm not entirely sure a closure was needed. Closing after only 3 hours ignores the tendecy of many discussions to fluctuate, as the first early contributions often over-represent some opinions - AFDs and RFAs produce many such swings. Was there a specific reason for closing this so quickly, for example did you have reason to believe a war was about to break out? --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposal was a virtual duplicate of one that was overwhelmingly rejected. The action on that page has been disruptive, and appears to be a scheme to gain advantage in a pending arbitration case. There is more here than meets the eye. Jehochman 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have explained below why the proposal is different. Your comments about a "Scheme to gain advantage" are totally unsupported and imaginary. Brews ohare (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here, but I don't agree with you. I've always understood (or at least back in the days when I naively thought there were policies that governed how the wikipedia operated and that everyone agreed as a collaborative collective to abide by them, I thought I understood) that trying to tweak policy to favor your position in an ongoing dispute is not considered appropriate. If I'm not mistaken, Science Apologist and MartinPhi were sanctioned at least once for doing exactly that. You complained earlier that Jehochman had "interrupted" your discussion on talk: civility by mentioning your being a party to an ArbCom case; you seemed to feel that this was out of line somehow. Actually, the fact that you are a party to an ArbCom case, in which you are drafting proposals on the workshop some of which closely resemble the proposals you're making on the civility policy page, is relevant context that should be known to the discussants at the policy page, and there's nothing wrong with Jehochman making them aware of this context. My opinion echoes Jehochman's on this point, that your activities at WP:Civility could well appear to others as a "scheme to gain advantage in a pending arbitration case;" even though it doesn't seem that way to you, and even though there doesn't seem much chance that it would succeed, it could give that appearance. Woonpton (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton: Thanks for your remarks, as I don't have any confidence at all in the other participants' objectivity. As a test of "gaining advantage": Whether the proposal succeeded or not makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to Case/Speed of light. it is a matter totally unrelated. Brews ohare (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews: That you "don't have any confidence at all in the other participants' objectivity"—that is, we are all biased against you so you reject everything we say (and you are objective?)—is a big part of the problem. Finell (Talk) 02:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) revised 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, the fact that you have a workshop proposal on the case claiming that editors have misused the edit summary, and at the same time are making a policy proposal to include misuse of the edit summary under incivility, negates the claim that the policy proposal and the case are "totally unrelated." The fact that you have listed this as one of your proposals on the workshop means you want the arbitrators to consider including this as a finding of fact in the final decision; can you see that it might raise eyebrows for you to be making the same proposal on a policy page at the same time? The fact that (by my reading) it's quite unlikely that your workshop proposal will be included in the final decision is immaterial to the appropriateness of shopping this proposal around elsewhere at the same time. Sorry, Jehochman, I'll get off your page. Woonpton (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton: I see your point. I do not view the result of arbitration as finding editors guilty, but as identifying actions that can control bad behavior in the future. However a focus on crime and punishment instead of fixing systemic problems does seem to be the way things are going. Thanks again. Brews ohare (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, you seem impervious to advice. If you had ever listened to feedback, we would not be at arbitration. The result is pretty much inevitable: if you continue your style of persistent arguments and attempting to wear down those who disagree with you, you will get either a tpoic ban or a site ban. I've been involved in many arbitration cases and have seen this sort of situation before. You need to stop arguing and accept the fact that you might be wrong. Jehochman 11:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had accepted Woonpton's comments. Brews ohare (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's been months and months that you haven't heard advice at Speed of light. You're editing has been very tendentious. Misplaced Pages has all kinds of articles that need help. Why engage in endless debates against consensus when you could go off and edit in peace? Jehochman 14:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't want to abandon Speed of light to a few fanatics, but that would have been a lot easier. There are systemic issues here for WP that should be fixed, including an inability to deal with pillory and false testimony, but getting my head chopped off won't fix anything. Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. There are lots and lots of lonesome articles that need help. Please try to focus on quality standards rather than points of view. It may be useful to edit some articles totally unrelated to prior interests. It can be fun to work on something like sushi or Connecticut. Jehochman 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving request for comment

You have archived an active request for comment based upon your individual assessment that there was no-one else who wished to participate. I find that (i) erroneous inasmuch as the proposal was posted only for a few minutes, and (ii) participants engaged that were not present on the earlier proposal. In addition, this proposal is not the same as the earlier RfC, although there are similarities. In particular, it is suggested as a modification of a change made already by Rd232, and is not a standalone, and it is a much more moderately phrased proposal.

For these reasons, I suggest your action is premature, and suggest you reverse your archiving of this RfC. Brews ohare (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you proposed a second RFC that was nearly identical to the first. The commenters are nearly unanimous in rejecting both. I suggest you start a discussion to formulate a wording that has at least some community support, and then propose an RfC. However, you should probably not do this at all until your arbitration case clears. You were advised that editing policy now was not a good idea. There is a strong appearance that your actions are disruptive. I've asked Vassyana to review the matter and see if a block would be appropriate. Jehochman 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

J, I have a question. If this is Jacurek (as I've good reason to think it was), editing the same articles that Jacurek edits, is this sockpuppeteering per WP:SOCK? I've already asked days before, but he didn't answer, proceeding to wipe the question from his talk. I asked again, and he's still ignoring me while editing away. The user name and the IP are editing the same disputed articles at the same time, so it seems like abuse of multiple accounts, but I've never filed the SPI before, and just wanted to be completely sure so no one from the EE mailing list accuses me of filing reports to harass opponents. I could go to SPI with this, but don't know if that would be deemed appropriate for IP editing or not. I thought you might give advice, and it would be really appreciated. Thanks, Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is either account edit warring, either the IP or Jacurek? Slow burn edit warring, such as one revert per day over multiple days is a problem, even if three revert rule is never broken. If they are edit warring, who are they edit warring with? It takes at least two parties to make an edit war. Jehochman 03:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The worst case of multiple accounts was early this month, during ArbCom. At Jedwabne pogrom, where other users (Viriditas, Paul Siebert, and User:Dr. Dan complained about Polish POV pushing, Jacurek and the IP both repeatedly made questionable edits (though not outright reverts) to the same article in a matter of days. Due to the EEML investigation, of course, Jacurek was under scrutiny, and it looks like he came back as an IP to make inflammatory comments , in this case outright denying that a Holocaust pogrom perpetrated by Poles after the Nazi invasion, so as to better avoid the scrutiny of the kind of work he does on Misplaced Pages. Both "Jacurek" and the IP contributed to the talk page discussion, suggesting that the two accounts were used to push a certain POV with more support than would be apparent otherwise.

The IP also came back to discuss content dispute with Dr. Dan, the aforementioned content opponent of Jacurek and other Polish editors, in August (in this case, the IP was used to support Loosmark, who is a content-friend of Jacurek, against Dr. Dan). The dispute centered around whether foreign names should be used for Eastern European towns, where such use is not necessary:

Both Jacurek and the IP share a Polish nationalist POV and are based in Canada. Both Jacurek and the IP share the same interest in editing Holocaust-related articles (fully half of the IP's edits are Holocaust-related, while Jacurek lists Polish-Jewish relations as his area of interest at WikiProject Poland), and these edits are made on the same, adjacent, or proximate days. Both Jacurek and the IP saw fit to engage with Dr. Dan during a Polish-Lithuanian EE content dispute. Whereas the IP seems to have been largely used in innocent ways prior to the opening of ArbCom aside from the incident with Dr. Dan in August, it looks as though Jacurek specifically inserted himself as the IP editor into the Jedwabne article once ArbCom started, as he did not want to be associated with a Polish ultranationalist POV on a Holocaust article and did not want to seem like a Holocaust revisionist. Given the mailing list, Jacurek is already inclined to be viewed as an aggressive Polish nationalist.

Then there is the issue of deceptive editing. The IP and Jacurek, per WP:DUCK, look like the same user, but Jacurek denies it.

In short, while edit warring wasn't truly an issue, the use of multiple accounts looks like a violation of the prohibition of using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, make inflammatory comments on sensitive subjects (ie, the Holocaust) and using an account to create more support for a position than actually exists (given the discussion with Dr. Dan and the participation at Jedwabne). Jacurek's block log shows a history of sockpuppetry. I believe that this investigation would help the investigation as far as revealing the abuse of multiple accounts.

Am I entitled to visit SPI Checkuser in this instance? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Jehochman: Just to let you know IP 99.236.70.174 is not me and I have nothing to do with the edits of that anonymous IP. Lately I'm being harassed by many]] who are using current situation with EE mailing list to "which hunt" and are throwing every "dirt" they can. I chose to ignore them. Anti-Nationalist is welcome to follow proper proceeders and file WP:SOCK if he wishes to do so. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is not you, how is your own editing? Have you been edit warring at all? Are you involved in any content disputes that I could help you resolve? Jehochman 03:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not involved in any major content dispute or edit war right now but thanks for the offer of help, I will keep this in mind.--Jacurek (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman: Is this o.k. to call or maybe suggest that somebody is (see Anti-Nationalist comment above) Polish POV pusher, Polish ultranationalist, aggressive Polish nationalist, Holocaust revisionist etc.? Can he provide any examples of me being one? I'm not even fully Polish and I have Jewish ancestry so how can I be Holocaust revisionist? Mud sticks, and in my opinion AN is just trying to portray me in a very bad light here. If the issue was simply that anon IP why don't he just file a request with a check user etc. to see if there is any relation between us? Why did AN missed facts that I actually chanaged IP 99.236.70.174 edits]]? Why would I revert myself if I was IP 99.236.70.174 ? I don't think that he really believes there is any relations between us. This is just an excuse to present my person in a very bad light. I'm really disgusted with this and I don't want to have anything to do with people like Anti-Nationalist, that is why I chose to ignore him instead of talking to him or getting back at him with accusations etc.--Jacurek (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The second diff isn't a revert, so that makes for one. I sometimes add something in, and hten revert it myself. You're both from Canada, both have the same nationalistic point of view, you edit the same articles (95% of the time the IP seems to be working on just wherever you, or less often, a friend, such as Radeksz, edits), you have similar writing styles, you've both had disputes with Dr. Dan, and the IP was most active where you are when you found yourself under scrutiny from ArbCom. I wrote out a lengthy explanation above, and I'd just like Jehochman's opinion as to what I should do, given my view of the nature of these suspicious edits. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright - PROVIDE A SINGLE DIFF THAT THIS IP "SEEMS TO BE WORKING" WITH ME OR QUIT SLANDERING PEOPLE!!! This is completely insane. PasswordUsername really thinks he's got carte blanche to do whatever he wants and lie as much as he wants now.radek (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Anti-Nationalist but I did not ask you, could youe please move your comment to the section above? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help

Well, you offered help so I need your opinion on this one. The neutrality tags are being constantly removes from this article] by user Skäpperöd]]]]]] but the dispute still continues, see talk page. I don't want to do any reverts so what to do in situation like this one?--Jacurek (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats! Majorly talk 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; congrats and best of luck. –Juliancolton |  01:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Until It Sleeps 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Major congrats! Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you get a week of paternity leave. It's in the admin contract. See you back here soon. :P MastCell  02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Take as much time as you can with your new addition because the years go by fast. The little tyke will be borrowing your credit card and staying out past curfew before you know it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent news, congratulations! Now focus on fun with the family, as Boris wisely says. Time flies! . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, all! Jehochman 14:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! 8lb 9oz is a big little guy. All the best to the mom. Finell (Talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's a moose. Jehochman 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)