Absidy et al.
Hey, has Obuibo Mbstpo disclosed all of his sockpuppets to you? The "others before that" and "used only a time or two" comments on his user page are a tad disquieting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Either the editor will behave or they will give us definitive proof that they need to be banned. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are awesome. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Protecting Randy B
You are either a truly lovely man or are choosing to protect an editor that shouldn't be protected. You chose to delete my comment to him in which I expressed concern that he mis-quoted me; in other words, he put into quotes a statement in which he said that I made (but didn't). I personally do not think that such editors should be protected. Other people should see that he seemingly showing bad faith on wikipedia. Then, another editor chose to defend Randy B by saying that I was "baiting" him. "Baiting" does not mean expressing concern about making quotes up out of thin air. My concern was real, and yet, for unknown reasons, you and other editors are protecting/defending an editor that perhaps should not be protected or defended...or worse, perhaps you are choosing to be complicate in these shenanigans. I want to AGF. Please tell me why I should. DanaUllmanTalk 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you should not look at Wikipedia as a battleground where ideas clash and various editors struggle for the primacy of their beliefs. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Jehochman Talk 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, unfortunately Wikipedia is becoming a battle ground. As you can see in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WIKIFASCISM: new word; definition page deleted by wikifascist editor as contentless. If it is a WP:DUCK it is a duck and we should not WP:HORSE it but try to deal with the problem before it escalates itself beyond control. And this is not just a few editors' POV but the whole Internet community sees us in such light. Igor Berger (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman...first, I have not told you yet, but you're one of the few people here who is transparent...and I have a great respect for those fellow editors who are transparent. I feel much more comfortable disagreeing (or agreeing) with a real person than an anonymous person. To clarify my intentions, I am not interested in the "primacy of beliefs." I am academically-oriented, and I'm interested in helping to create NPOV info on specific subjects that shows various viewpoints and that is notable and reliable. I do not want just "positive" info, but of the "negative" or skeptical info, it should be accurate and notable. What doesn't work is when editors are not honest and when other editors defend or protect them. Please give me a reason that I should not undo your deleting of the real and serious concerns that I expressed to Randy B. If you need to tell me something privately, please email me. DanaUllmanTalk 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, unfortunately Wikipedia is becoming a battle ground. As you can see in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WIKIFASCISM: new word; definition page deleted by wikifascist editor as contentless. If it is a WP:DUCK it is a duck and we should not WP:HORSE it but try to deal with the problem before it escalates itself beyond control. And this is not just a few editors' POV but the whole Internet community sees us in such light. Igor Berger (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you nominate Homeopathy as a featured article candidate and use the feedback from that process to improve the article. Once an article reaches FA status, it is much harder for drive-by POV pushers to damage the article. Jehochman Talk 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo
Your posts to my user talk were a little confusing at first. Then I realized you might have thought it was a surprise. If you like, tell Danny I can bring in Virgil Griffith too. DurovaCharge! 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you hadn't mentioned it before. Could you ask Virgil if he would license the Wikiscanner code? I could arrange hosting and constant maintenance. The database hasn't been updated since August. Keeping the thing running and paying for hosting is a non-trivial challenge, but I think I see a way to do it. Jehochman Talk 12:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello
You have put a completely incorrect interpretation of the RfCU on the article probation page. Unprovoked/RDOlivaw/DrEightyEight are one user, that's old old news. There was no connection made between this user and MC or The Tutor, nor was a connection proven between MC and The Tutor. MC is being vanished, per his own request. The Tutor is not blocked. You should correct this ASAP. —Whig (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please read more carefully. MC was not proven to be TT. The connection has been denied. AGF, and please strike this nonsense. —Whig (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're getting warmer, but you're still in the wrong. Repeating accusations like that is not helpful. —Whig (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I really think you are doing the wrong thing here. I wish you would remove your statement until you can ascertain the facts. You are not making a false statement now, but you are imputing bad faith to a real person and to a new editor when no accusations of abusing sock puppet accounts has been proven. I ask you again to strike it or we should seek some kind of dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although you do not seem to respect the ArbCom's handling of the prior matter in which you were careless and caused problems, I am hopeful that it will not be necessary for us to return to that forum. I believe this is a serious matter which should be escalated as quickly as necessary to prevent the loss of a valuable new contributor. —Whig (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
User Jupiter Optimus Maximus
Just on a hunch, I wonder if you might check out User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk). He appeared in late February, 2008, about the time Illustrious One was blocked, and shares many characteristics, including a fascination with categories. I'm not entirely convinced they're the same, but the stars are starting to align. Elphion (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- They are obviously a sock. I think you need to gather a few diffs and file a request at WP:RFCU. Jehochman Talk 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to proceed. (I am not an admin, and have never been through something like this before.) I read the instructions at WP:RFCU but nothing seemed to fit precisely. I have assembled some diffs here: User:Elphion/Auxiliary. I'm not sure whether these constitute the evidence they're looking for. Elphion (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeh akuse
I just looked at Jsmith_51389's contribs and compared them to those of Jeh akuse ... you're not the only one who hears quacking. Dunno if a checkuser would do any good ... last time Jsmith edited was in December '07. I have to admit, though, I was thisclose to deleting the unblock template and locking down his userspace ... the "request" was clearly abusive. Blueboy96 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jsmith 51389. It helps to nail down the sock puppetry and scan for sleeper accounts. December 07 may be recent enough. Checkuser will help us deal with future socks more quickly. This piqued my interest because the username is similar to mine. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Search Engine Strategies was just nominated for AfD
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Search_Engine_Strategies You may want to comment on it. Igor Berger (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- So vote! Jehochman Talk 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I hope the main page does not get nominated next..:) Igor Berger (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Chiropractic
Hey, I just saw all of this at MastCell's talk page. I haven't dipped in to those pages (and won't), but I've worked on four featured articles and multiple other articles with Eubulides, and he is one of our finest, fairest, most knowledgeable and most civil, FWIW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding that thread: EBDCM pre-emptively stated he was "leery" of having me review it, because I apparently share a professional degree with Eubulides ([1]) and I'm "skeptical" of complementary and alternative medicine. I would have hoped that my history is sufficient to make clear that I don't dismiss chiropractic or subscribe to any sort of MD-vs-DC dynamic, and that my view of alt-med is much more nuanced than "skepticism". But such is life. Anyhow, it's probably better someone else handle it - I have a very high impression of Eubulides from work he's done cleaning up a series of challenging and controversial (but important) articles on vaccination and autism, and I've not seen him get flustered very easily. I also think EBDCM has gone overboard based on the diffs cited on my talk page as well as others evident at Talk:Chiropractic. However, that is my opinion - I'm going to formally ask that you review Eubulides' complaint from my talk page, since I have too many real and/or perceived biases, apparently, to do so effectively myself. Would you be willing to look at it? If not, I'll probably put it up to the other admins on the homeopathy probation list. MastCell Talk 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can look at it tomorrow. Jehochman Talk 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Works for me. Sorry for dragging you in. MastCell Talk 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.101.89.150#Blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.101.89.150#Warning
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive367#civility_problems_and_copyright_violations_and_exposed_a_person.27s_real_name
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:EBDCM_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_.28Result:_protected.29
- Here is some background information. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_investigation_of_chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=196360552
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=196572637
- The two main chiropractic articles were on probation but each tag was removed by involved editors. QuackGuru (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have blocked EBDCM for one week. If problems resume, please file a user conduct requests for comment. Thank you for your patience. The evidence presentation was well organized and convincing. Jehochman Talk 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I make a user conduct requests for comment I could be attacked for doing that. For example, I gave a proper notification to I'clast and I was ganged up on.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
- The Quackwatch article is under probation[8] and I'clast has edited the article when it is still under probation.[9][10][11] QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Works for me. Sorry for dragging you in. MastCell Talk 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you handled that, Jehochman. You might recall two things: 1) I spoke up on the original homeopathy thread, saying that we needed to apply sanctions equally to some of our rudest regular editors and the newer editors, and 2) you might remember some of the evidence from the Z ArbCom, showing the very civil and patient conduct and adherence to AGF of the regulars on the talk pages of those articles. Eubulides was one of those patient and civil editors; he is not one of our "regular" problematic editors, who sometimes contribute to inflammation on the controversial articles by failing to adhere to AGF or civility. In our attempts to be fair on those articles, we shouldn't ensnare and entangle our hard working, productive, civil editors in time-consuming dispute resolution. We need the good ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the additional information. I always consider the reliability of the source when evaluating any sort of accusations. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation&curid=15504179&diff=197230975&oldid=196970059 I gave a proper notification and now it was removed without any justification. It smacks point which is a violation of the probation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. I just wandered into a mess, supposedly related to chiropractic. [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions
Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for a 30 day block from editng Wikipedia
WikiDrama that is not productive, please go edit articles instead
|
---|
I am really seriouce. If I get a topic ban I may get in trouble, and I do not want to risk having a problem. So I rather get a 30 day block, and take a wikibreak. Then I can come back and start fresh! Igor Berger (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Sockpuppet concern
I've been posting under numerous 130.101 IPs. You can see my other IPs at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. I gave my reason for using IPs at a sock accusation I was found innocent in, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (3rd). Sorry for the confusion; I'm using public terminals and the IP changes when I use different computers. Cheers 130.101.152.155 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- See my comments at WP:AE. There is an easy way to protect your privacy while avoiding the appearance or realization of sock puppetry. Jehochman Talk 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Questions at my talk page
I would appreciate you returning to my talk page to provide your response to the question of brokerage that I have left there.--VS talk 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Webblogs and notability
Sorry to bother you, as I'm pretty sure you're a busy man (and yeah I'm kinda reposting this from when I mentioned it on Jimbo Wales's page, but I need a response in the more immediate future x.x_. So I'll cut to the chase too. I've been working extensively on Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), an article which I'm trying to make a good one out of. The problem is it's only really seen large scale coverage starting on the 22nd of February, and much of the information from there has appeared in online blogs. The problem is coming up that regardless of which blog in question, they're being treated on the whole as 'non-notable'. However if I may to argue the notability of the ones I'm using as cornerstones for the article until a later time when better references become available:
- Kotaku not too long ago had an incident with Sony, which shows Kotaku and Sony have a professional relationship with each other, including Kotaku representatives being at Sony press releases.
- Joystiq itself has interviewed many key figures in the gaming industry, including Ryan Payton, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. If the site wasn't corporately notably to any of these companies why would they have bothered?
- InsertCredit.com additionally was present at the GDC event, and interviewed Hudson Soft as well amongst others.
All three of these are cited also often in wikipedia. I'm hoping all of this can make a case for these three to be considered valid sources to confirm the notability of the game enough as well as their own notability for other articles.
Anyway thank you for your time. You came to mind as the person to talk to after reading your statements here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- You need to point out that certain industries, such as gaming, release most news via blogs, and only later does traditional "dead tree" media pick up on the stories and regurgitate them, often muddling the details. As such, for certain topics, online sources are more reliable. A "blog" can be a reliable source if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, especially if it employs professional editorial staff to review stories. Something that is called a "blog" may in fact be an "e-zine" which is logically equivalent to a trade journal and just as reliable. That's the argument in a nutshell. I hope this helps you make your case. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Many weblogs are WP:RS under WP:SPS. Some blogs are even under editorial control just like a newspaper or magazine. Some are even peer-reviewed.--Filll (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Template removals possible promotional edits
Hi Jehochman, hope your keeping well. If you are too busy just say so. Could you have a look at thiese IPs' 117.200.224.55 and 117.200.224.164) edits to Feminism, Simone de Beauvoir and Sarojini Sahoo in particular. I {{fact}} tagged something they added to Feminism and {{unsourced section}}ed a piece they seem to have written at the Sarojini Sahoo article. They blanked these templates[13][14][15][16]. I warned them. They then reverted an edit I made removing inappropriate external links (blogs and forums) from Feminism[17]. I've reverted them myself once already so I'm doing no more reverting tonight. They seem to be promoting Sarojini Sahoo, who's work is great - it's just that the IPs are calling her "the Indian Simone de Beauvoir" and adding links to each article without any references to who said this. They are also doing all of this without edit summaries or discussion.
If you get a chance maybe you'd have a look--Cailil talk 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've given them 48 hours, both accounts, because they are clearly the same editor. If problems resume, or if other accounts are used, please let me know. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies about earlier
Wasn't meaning to hop IPs to avoid a block; please realize that with a new IP I didn't get the talk page messages; I didn't realize the other IP was blocked or I would have gone ahead and {{unblock}}ed it first. I'm not going to edit after this message until the unblock is decided on the other talk. 130.101.152.24 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Supportive
I am supportive of your comments here and would normally respond underneath but for today I will leave my comments here only, in appreciation of your actions.--VS talk 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia namespace community ban
Being that I have been community banned for 30 days from editing in Wikipedia name space, I would like you to put a template on my user talk page stating as such, so other editors will understand why I cannot go to Wikipedia: space to comment! I also would like you or another admin who was envolved in the ban decission to file WP:RFAR because I still contest this matter. I do not want to file the ArbCom hearing request because I fear that will be used as excuse that I violated the imposed ban. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please desregard my request, I am learning how to relax. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
came across a sock
Hi Jehochman, I came across this user Novjunulo yesterday and they matched the behaviour of the blocked user Junulo (not to mention having a really similar name). I opened a checkuser and it just cam back as confirmed (see here). Nonody's done anything to the two accounts in question. Do I need to report to WP:SSP or is it time for a little sysop intervention?--Cailil talk 12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Expiry date
Hi JEH. This edit at WP:RESTRICT seems to have put the expiry date 8 months in the future, rather than the expected 6 months. The expiry date should be 2008-09-10. Since I'm not sure, I didn't change it myself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
hi
This checkuser related to an article I've been editing discovered the sock puppets of two abusive users. Despite four socks of Stone put to sky (talk · contribs) being found neither his "extra" accounts or Stone himself were blocked. All of his socks were used to game reverts and consensus on the talk page. Is nothing going to be done or should I file a report at WP:SSP. Keep in mind this isn't the first offense. Thanks, Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Ip's and homeopathy
I think it is possible or even likely that the IP you recently topic-banned, 70.107.246.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), belongs to Davkal (talk · contribs). MastCell Talk 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you file a WP:RFCU on the basis of your information? Jehochman Talk 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dana and Homeopathy
I got your message, though please know that it is not my intent to engage in an edit war. I didn't delete anything, but simply provided some good NPOV references. As long as other editors dialogue with me and present their cases in a reasonable fashion, I prefer avoid edit warring. Please AGF. I put a lot of time and thought into that contribution, and I'd love to work with you and others on figuring out how to include the body of research on homeopathy that the article at present does not reference. DanaUllmanTalk 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- 1/ Use the talk page. 2/ Don't remove or change any content that is referenced and was placed there by somebody else without a clear consensus of parties on all sides of the issue. Jehochman Talk 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable, in the edit about which you expressed concern, please note that I didn't remove anything...I only added good solid RS and N content. I also suggest that you consider warning editors when they are repeatedly doing the above. The vast majority of the time I do Talk pages quite thoroughly (as you know), though sometimes, it does make sense to be bold, as good editors need to be. I hope that you will now comment upon the content that I sought to add. DanaUllmanTalk 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Having watched this page now for many months, I believe that we need to create some sort of fork (still NPOV) to house all the research information, both positive and negative, about homeopathy. Possibly theories about homeopathy might or might not work could be included. There is just too much for the main article, and it is too involved and too specialized. I will try to organize a spin-off page for this.--Filll (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the table of contents you will see two or three sections that have many subsections. Just create daughter articles, without changing the content. Be sure to leave a summary of the removed content in the main article and explain on the talk page that you are not trying to pull a fast one. See gamma ray burst for a good example. The new daughter articles will qualify for WP:DYK too. Jehochman Talk 01
- 34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Views
I saw you mention at FAC that a certain page had had a specific number of 'views'. How do you find that statistic out and can anyone do it? Fainites barley 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see...http://stats.grok.se/ Jehochman Talk 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I keep getting a message from another user stating that I am vandalizing a page which clearly am not. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nissan_GT-R under "overwhelmingly published articles state the nissan gtr is a supercar" What have I done wrong and why are they not following the rules set forth by wikipeadia??? Please help. Thank you. CompScientist (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- You know by now that edit warring is very harmful to Wikipedia. Due to many past incidents of this nature, and abuse of sock puppet accounts to circumvent past blocks, I have disabled editing from your account indefinitely, at least until you show that you are willing to work with other editors. Jehochman Talk 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Rocketboom / Andrew Baron
This one has warmed up again. Both Andrew Baron and Rocketboom still have POV issues. Andrew Baron deleted his page and it was restored by others. Based on prior discussion on the talk page, I attempted to merge the two articles and that seems to have been reverted by different folks. I then attempted to remove the duplicated material from the Andrew Baron article and that was reverted as well. Seems like the next step is to put Andrew Baron on AfD where it would likely reach merge consensus, but frankly I'm hesitant to get involved. Can you take a peek and make some suggestions on how to proceed? For the record, I'm not affiliated with any of the parties and I walked away from this for several months. Cleanr (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you check this autoblock
[18] Normally, I would handle autoblocks myself, since it is usually innocent collateral damage, but since this one deals with sockpuppetry problems, I thought I would bump it to you since you are more familiar with the sockpuppet in question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just seeing if you looked into this. Hadn't heard a response in a while... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Prior_account
I responded to your post at User_talk:Wakedream#Prior_account there. Thanks for listening! Wakedream (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
NPOV and Waterboarding
As you began a discussion on my userpage, I thought I'd return the favor. Actually, I could use some advice. As you've pointed out, I've been involved in the discussion over whether Waterboarding should be identified by Wikipedia as torture, or, as I believe, identified as an interrogation method or something similar. The article could then name people, governments, authorites, etc. who call it torture, and name those who say (or, as is the case with George W. Bush, imply) that it is not. I keep running into editors, as I think have you, who say Bush isn't a valid source because he's not an expert, or that the people who say it's not torture are just a fringe and should be ignored, or that 6 to 10 people vs. 230 people aren't worth mentioning. None of this seems to me to be NPOV. I believe editors are letting their personal feelings get in the way of their editing. My question is, what can I do without letting myself get caught in a repetitive debate? (Note that my opinion on whether or not waterboarding is torture has nothing to do with my wanting the article to be NPOV. I believe very strongly in Thomas Jefferson's "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it," and in "let the facts speak for themselves," which you and I have both quoted). Thanks for your patience with a frustrated editor who's still learning! Wakedream (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can walk away and edit something else. You are repeating the same arguments, incorrect ones, that were used by a banned user. If you keep going, people will think you are them, and your account may get blocked. Jehochman Talk 11:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby, there have been ongoing edit disputes involving Justpassinby around the Pure Reason Revolution article and a new article on the band's main member Jon Courtney. While I feel there is a huge amount of axe-grinding still going on, largely these edits stop short of vandalism and respect process. However, in the AfD for Jon Courtney that s/he launched, Justpassinby claimed that a Pure Reason Revolution song by Jon Courtney entailed plagiarism. 78.105.130.169 (a previous sockpuppet of Justpassinby) then added the same claim to the PRR article. I removed the latter under WP:BLP, but was uncertain what to do about the AfD discussion. (The song in question quotes another song's lyrics but certainly no-one else has described this as plagiarism.) Would you be so kind as to look at the situation? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Please answer "yes" or "no"
You really think that will happen? Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the community needs to draft standards for the AC. Not like we can't enforce it. Lawrence § t/e 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am a hopeless optimist. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is a fallacy of begging the question, in any case. The question falsely assumes that consensus exists and asks whether it can be acted upon, when the real issue is that a block was enacted without any such consensus. Dmcdevit·t 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- And let's cut the fallacy language play and silly begging semantic games, because that childlike pseudo-intellectualism and naivety that pervaded this entire debate is one of the problems with it. The consensus against blocking Mantanmoreland is largely composed of the anti-Wordbomb/pro-Mantanmoreland crowd. Those for blocking are largely a huge random pool of editors. [OWCH!] Wordbomb--it doesn't matter if we give him any satisfaction, what matters is doing what is right in this entire mess. The only way to deal with cancer is to get rid of it, and that includes all traces. Lawrence § t/e 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- (Sorry for using your talk page when I'm not talking to you, Jehochman!) Fine, take out the fallacy language, my point is simply that the dispute is over whether the consensus existed, not whether ArbCom allowed a block or not. If you are painting me as part of some pro-Mantanmoreland partisan, then, frankly, I find it insulted to be referred to so dismissively. It would be interesting to know what I've done than makes me "pro-Mantanmoreland" besides the comments I've made regarding this proposal. I've hardly ever been involved in any of this drama before now, even. Dmcdevit·t 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to treat you dismissively, if that's what you got--not at all. I'm just tired of seeing the AC punt two overwhelming sock decisions in two cases now I've been involved with, both of which later turned to be borne out by community consensus on the socking allegations. For the partisan comments, not all of them are, no--thats what I meant by largely. There are a ton of people working in good faith on all sides here, and all of them for various reasons at their wit's end. I don't think it's any secret though that there is a contingent that do anything they can (even to the point of deriding entire news publications) that give any voice to Wordbomb in a way contrary to the high end "party line". On the flip side, you have people fighting tooth and nail on the other end, to make sure that everything is done on the absolute up and up. It's a mess. Lawrence § t/e 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- (Sorry for using your talk page when I'm not talking to you, Jehochman!) Fine, take out the fallacy language, my point is simply that the dispute is over whether the consensus existed, not whether ArbCom allowed a block or not. If you are painting me as part of some pro-Mantanmoreland partisan, then, frankly, I find it insulted to be referred to so dismissively. It would be interesting to know what I've done than makes me "pro-Mantanmoreland" besides the comments I've made regarding this proposal. I've hardly ever been involved in any of this drama before now, even. Dmcdevit·t 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dmcdevit, thank you for pointing out the fallacy. I have corrected it by identifying that position as my own opinion and stating that somebody else will eventually make a conclusive decision as to whether there is a consensus or not. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- And let's cut the fallacy language play and silly begging semantic games, because that childlike pseudo-intellectualism and naivety that pervaded this entire debate is one of the problems with it. The consensus against blocking Mantanmoreland is largely composed of the anti-Wordbomb/pro-Mantanmoreland crowd. Those for blocking are largely a huge random pool of editors. [OWCH!] Wordbomb--it doesn't matter if we give him any satisfaction, what matters is doing what is right in this entire mess. The only way to deal with cancer is to get rid of it, and that includes all traces. Lawrence § t/e 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is a fallacy of begging the question, in any case. The question falsely assumes that consensus exists and asks whether it can be acted upon, when the real issue is that a block was enacted without any such consensus. Dmcdevit·t 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jehochman. I notice that you concede "a ton of people working in good faith on all sides here". Sounds close to saying "there is no consensus as yet." Consensus may develop, but let's not jump the gun. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I wrote that. Good faith is different from consensus, since good faith can be misguided or lead to incorrect aims. For example, the people who endlessly defended the notion that Mantanmoreland was not sockpuppetting I believe did so in good faith per WP:AGF. However, they were wrong. Doesn't take away from their good faith, but consensus certainly can and will trump a good faith argument any day of the week. Lawrence § t/e 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is based on the opinions of those in the community. But the question here isn't whether Mantanmoreland has used sock puppets in a way proscribed by our policies--we all agree that he has done so. The question is whether the is consensus to ban him from the community. There is substantial disagreement with that proposal, but consensus may change. Let's give it time and see if it does. Consensus for a ban may yet form. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I wrote that. Good faith is different from consensus, since good faith can be misguided or lead to incorrect aims. For example, the people who endlessly defended the notion that Mantanmoreland was not sockpuppetting I believe did so in good faith per WP:AGF. However, they were wrong. Doesn't take away from their good faith, but consensus certainly can and will trump a good faith argument any day of the week. Lawrence § t/e 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jehochman. I notice that you concede "a ton of people working in good faith on all sides here". Sounds close to saying "there is no consensus as yet." Consensus may develop, but let's not jump the gun. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Banning v blocking
So let me get this straight. A ban is a block that's harder to undo. So if Mantanmoreland makes a reasonable case for unblocking, would I be justified in doing so? Or do I need the same consensus to unblock? Is there really any practical difference between an indefinite block and an indefinite ban? If there is, please actually tell me what it is. I am truly curious. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- A block can be undone if there is a block review. Undoing a ban requires a community discussion. The problem with this block review was that it clearly went against the consensus and the available evidence. A community discussion may lead to a consensus that a block review came to the wrong conclusion and the block will be re-implemented. It would have been better to first attempt to establish a consensus to unblock.
- Here's a good question, what is consensus to block and how does it differ from a consensus to ban? Consensus can be difficult to judge when there are no clear standards. For banning, the consensus is "no administrator opposing". For blocking, there is no definition of consensus. Perhaps we should clarify that. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- A block is just pushing a button. Jehochman, you festering sack of vomit!! See, that's an NPA violation. If you were to block me for it, that's just a block, is how I've always seen it. Any admin can justifiably say, No, and undo that. If another admin replaces it, then OK--I'm "blocked" again. If any other admin then does another unblock without support or discussion, we have a wheel war. Admin action > revert > restore admin action to last admin action status quo. That's all fine. A ban to me is everyone basically saying, enough is enough, and a consensus exists to permanently block the person operating the account. Lawrence § t/e 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lawrence is correct. A ban is a social construct -- the community says "we don't want this person around." An administrator then puts the ban into effect by imposing a block. It took me ages to figure out the difference, but I finally have it clear in my own mind, so please don't upset this delicate mental equilibrium by asking me to explain further... Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- A block is just pushing a button. Jehochman, you festering sack of vomit!! See, that's an NPA violation. If you were to block me for it, that's just a block, is how I've always seen it. Any admin can justifiably say, No, and undo that. If another admin replaces it, then OK--I'm "blocked" again. If any other admin then does another unblock without support or discussion, we have a wheel war. Admin action > revert > restore admin action to last admin action status quo. That's all fine. A ban to me is everyone basically saying, enough is enough, and a consensus exists to permanently block the person operating the account. Lawrence § t/e 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a good question, what is consensus to block and how does it differ from a consensus to ban? Consensus can be difficult to judge when there are no clear standards. For banning, the consensus is "no administrator opposing". For blocking, there is no definition of consensus. Perhaps we should clarify that. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thatcher requested I file Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream, wanted to give you a heads up. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind banning Wakedream per Thatcher's RFCU comment? I tagged the account already. Lawrence § t/e 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please ask another admin to handle this. I might be considered involved, even though the situation is quite clear. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft
Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I award you this barnstar for your diligence in sockpuppet investigations. To quote what you said: Through one of these simple cases I exposed a sock of Archtransit and set in motion a chain of events that would ultimately resolve one of the worst cases of sock puppetry ever discovered on Wikipedia." Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
What's with the ANI report?
Stop it, Jehochman! [19] Do you really want this whole affair to come to a confrontation, wasting even more time? Is there some reason you did not just discuss it with Mbstpo first? (If you did, I missed it, certainly it's possible. If he's been intransigent in any illegitimate way, I'd like to know.) I'd thought the troubles were over. Apparently not. By the way, watch out for the patronizing attitude. Mbstpo, you must understand, has an easily traceable account history back to 2005, and tells me he actually started in 2004. He knows Wikipedia quite well. Well enough to know where policy isn't clear and needs to be clarified.--Abd (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Must be my week for sorting out the sock drawer
Hi Jehochman, sorry to bug you with this, but if you get a chance could you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harrassment_from_probable_RichSatan_sockpuppets. I've been a target of some on-wiki harassment by User:RichSatan and a number of IPs (one or two of them could be dynamic) all resolving to the same ISP on the same street in Exter in Devon (UK). If you get a chance please have a look. AN RFCU confirmed that RichSatan is a sock-puppeteer but made no comment on the IPs (see it here). personally they look like ducks to me--Cailil talk 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.
PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.
For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)