User talk:Jehochman/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jehochman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Jehochman. You have new messages at Russavia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Russavia

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

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

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

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

Encyclopedia

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

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

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

Please take any relevant comments to the arbitration page. It is improper to attempt to pressure people via their talk pages when there is already a perfectly good conversation going on in an appropriate dispute resolution venue. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I just want to leave a reply here, because I didn't anticipate this section to being closed). For the record, it was nobody's suggestion: I was taking a moment to observe the undertow/Law and ArbCom situation and noticed your participation thereof.
Look - it was probably not my place to say that, and it only caused a bit more trouble. I don't want to be a troll, and normally I never want to make unnecessary comments. TBH, aspects of this whole situation left me with some very distinct opinions/feelings. If it were my choice again, I wouldn't have left any note here at all; although I still hope we can remember what this website is about and use time wisely. Trust and adminship is a big issue, indeed; I get where you guys are coming from. "Exposing deception" is good if it's gone about reasonably, and it's probably best now that the case has officially been submitted to ArbCom. I'm not sure if I understand "threatens dozens of articles" since this is more of an editors issue rather than articles, though. But some of the extraneous mess has wasted people's time. Like I said above, that list of tasks is our main goal. I'd rather not comment at the RfAR, btw - just the same, I'm leaving this convo at rest. If you'd ever like to do some relatively easy but purposeful work, WP:BLPPOTENTIAL is that way, and I think I'll head in that direction now. :) Best wishes, JamieS93 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jamie. I'm heading to 2009 influenza pandemic as soon as I get motivated. Jehochman ^Talk 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic

Hi Jehochman, haven't seen you at flu pandemic for a couple of days. Besides the secondary infection of bacterial pneumonia angle, I have two sources stating that the cough caused by the swine flu virus is typically a dry cough (on discussion page). Plus jump in a help if you can. Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I WILL! Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright! Cool Nerd (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Help desk software

Hi, I saw your helpful suggestion in the discussion about an arb's recent apology. Is such software readily available in s simple form that would run on a fairly ordinary pc? 'Cos it would be useful to me in my other life as a real person. DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This search is a place to start: google:Open+Source+Help+Desk+Software. You probably need to install it on a web server. Any reasonable developer should be able to set something up for you. The basic idea is that a user enters a request for help, and they get an immediate email response with a ticket number. At any time they can enter follow up information which gets attached to the ticket. On the back end you have an admin page where you can see open requests, set the status, add follow up notes, and eventually close requests when they are solved. This sort of system ensures that nothing falls through the cracks, and it provides visibility to all participants, not just the one recipient. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - may be a bit more than I actually need at the moment, but could be very helpful in the future. I agree with you that it could be a great help to Arbs. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For personal use consider Basecamp (software). It's not exactly help desk software, but it can be useful for tracking issues and deadlines. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again - I will have a chat with a friend who knows how to set up these things and see what we can do. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We use Spiceworks at the office here -- seems to work pretty well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

References

You say you have software that will generate a reference from most web pages?

Want.

It.

) -Pete (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a Firefox add-on called Cite4Wiki. Somebody created it based on an earlier tool I created. Will rumage around for the url when I get to my desk. Try Googling meanwhile. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. Found it on google, will fool around with it a bit. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

'Twas me

I was still sorting out the sordid details of where things when wrong with Vandenberg before I had to go to bed and then work.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Statement_by_Keegan

Let me know if that does not satisfy your questions or concerns behind my methodology. Keegan (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned at all. Thank you for your contributions. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

EE arbitration

Heading changed by Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I regret your comment at the arbitration. Your misinterpretation and subsequent unfortunate mischaracterization of my "rhetoric", coupled with your earlier advices to Sandstein to have a spot of tea and come back later when things blow over, indicate to me you're emotionally involved in the proceedings. That's neither good nor bad, I rather suspect there is a good deal of "emotional involvement" on the part of all concerned. (Except Sandstein.) I am just making you aware.
Please do not take this as public lecturing. I normally make it my practice to offer such advice in private—however, I have no wish for further misconstruing of the intent of off-Wiki communication simply beause it is off-Wiki. Editors may find that WP:GLASNOST is not all it's cracked up to be. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 14:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read the above. Thank you for your thoughts. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please link

your proposal here. Thanks KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 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)

Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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: Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 00:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your stance

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

"admins [who]... knowing full well that the account had been used [improperly]... 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?"

Was this your view 2 months ago, in relation to the evidence of concealment of sock-puppetry by an admin, at this case?
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^[1] concerns at the RFC.

^[1] 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 ^{(Talk | email)} 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 ^Talk 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. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Your first post at RFC [1] 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 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You know very well I amended my opinion.[2] 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 ^Talk 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. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 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 ^{(Talk | email)} 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 ^Talk 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 ^{(Talk | email)} 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 ^Talk 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 ^{(Talk | email)} 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 ^Talk 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 ^{(Talk | email)} 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 ^{talk|contribs} 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 ^{(Talk | email)} 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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)

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 - ^{Wiki me up®} 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: Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Flu pandemic GA "gap-patching"

Hello, Jehochman. You have new messages at Talk:2009_flu_pandemic/GA1#Wrapping_up.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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,[3] so rest assured I am disclosed in any case). Call it luck that I managed to jump right into the thicket, not knowing that Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Ingo Jones plan for a new palace at Whitehall 1638.jpg]]. 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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. Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

J, I have a question. If this [4] 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 ^Talk 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 [5], 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 Wikipedia. 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: [6][7][8]

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[[9]][[10]] 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 ^Talk 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[[11]][[12]]? 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[[13]] by user Skäpperöd[[14]][[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]] 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)

2009 flu pandemic

Em, congratulations! Please move the following text to the article talk or elsewhere if you think appropriate.

You asked SandyGeorgia for some advice on going to FAC. I've not (yet) written any medical FAs but I'm working on it, and I've reviewed quite a few. I've really struggled with this article because it is unlike any medical article I've read. There are sections that are plain disease-article sections but half of it is current affairs, historical analysis and what-we-think-we-know information. I'll start with some comments on the sources.

The sources include some medical journals but mostly newspapers, CDC reports, WHO press releases and news-wire reports. WP:MEDRS doesn't recommend newspapers for medical facts. In order to meet FAC's "professional standards of ... sourcing", I think the medical facts about influenza (characteristics, symptoms and severity, vaccination, treatment, epidemiology, historical pandemics) should be sourced per WP:MEDRS to professional medical journals and books. The CDC/WHO reports can be considered primary sources on the state of scientific knowledge/advice about pandemic influenza as it happened. Newspapers shouldn't be used if they are just covering the same ground as the official reports, but sometimes they are useful for interviews or government statements not otherwise published. Most of the newspapers look to be quality broadsheets, but I see some local newspapers, FOX News and some TV video clips being used.

Some of the sources will date quickly. For example, the sources of virus characteristics date from May 2009. Some just seem inappropriate. We have the CEO of Smithfield Foods being cited for the "Origin is unknown" statement. I see one blog (virology.blog). Some of the sources aren't static. The "Swine flu latest" on www.nhs.uk is continually updated. The WHO Situation Updates webpage is really just a contents page to a series of weekly updates.

At times the article reads a bit like a US government fact sheet. There's a lot of "the CDC recommends this", "the CDC estimates that", "the CDC reports that". As a UK reader, it leaves me alienated, thinking this is a US article. Is this style encyclopaedic? Sometimes, it is necessary to document what officials said at the time, but other times we should just state facts as facts. For example, in the Virus Characteristics section, why do we say "A study at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in May 2009, found " and later "In July 2009, the CDC noted that most infections were ..." Surely an encyclopaedia would just state the virus characteristics, without attributing the research in the body text or dating it?

Back to the FA considerations. I'm not sure that pushing this to FA is either possible or desirable. That's just my current impression and I'm willing to listen to objections. With sourcing, for example, there's a jump between what is acceptable for WP:V and what is considered "professional" for FA. This is the very essence of an article where everyone thinks they can add something. It needs to be bang-up-to-date so can't hang around for some review in the Lancet. This continual insertion of updates means it is more a collection of information, grouped by section, than an article that has been planned and flows through a story. The multi-author aspect is what is great about WP but too many cooks can spoil an FA. If this were to achieve FA, I'd worry that folk would be so determined to maintain the high standards, that new information was rejected because the sourcing was mediocre, it wasn't great prose or that it was tacked on the end of some unrelated paragraph. Perhaps there are some current-affairs FAs that prove me wrong here? I suspect that to maintain FA standards, the article would need a full time WikiDoc with access to the latest information in the BMJ, NEJM, Lancet and other journals.

A quick search on PubMed found the following articles which may be useful. These are just from the first few pages of results going back to September. There are pages and pages of relevant results that could be mined. I haven't looked at the full-text of these articles -- just the PubMed listing.

Sorry this is a bit rambling and negative. I actually think this is a good article and an good example of WP editors working to report a current topic well. I'm just not sure that FA is the appropriate destination. Colin°^Talk 21:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Scalera NM, Mossad SB. The first Pandemic of the 21st Century: A Review of the 2009 Pandemic Variant Influenza A (H1N1) Virus. Postgrad Med. 2009 Sep;121(5):43-47. PMID 19820273.
Armstrong C. CDC Releases Guidelines on H1N1 Vaccination and Prevention of Seasonal Influenza. Am Fam Physician. 2009 Oct 1;80(7):744. PMID 19817344.
Keogh-Brown MR, Wren-Lewis S, Edmunds WJ, Beutels P, Smith RD. The possible macroeconomic impact on the UK of an influenza pandemic. Health Econ. 2009 Oct 8. PMID 19816886.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update on Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccines. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009 Oct 9;58(39):1100-1. PMID 19816398.
Thompson WW, Moore MR, Weintraub E, Cheng PY, Jin X, Bridges CB, Bresee JS, Shay DK. Estimating influenza-associated deaths in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2009 Oct;99 Suppl 2:S225-30. PMID 19797736.
Gordon SM. Update on 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus. Cleve Clin J Med. 2009 Oct;76(10):577-82. PMID 19797457.
Peiris JS, Tu WW, Yen HL. A novel H1N1 virus causes the first pandemic of the 21(st) Century. Eur J Immunol. 2009 Sep 29. PMID 19790188.
Pratt RJ. The global swine flu pandemic 1: exploring the background to influenza viruses. Nurs Times. 2009 Sep 1-7;105(34):18-21. PMID 19788110.
Cordova-Villalobos JA, Sarti E, Arzoz-Padres J, Manuell-Lee G, Romero J, Kuri-Morales PA. The influenza A(H1N1) epidemic in Mexico. Lessons learned. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009 Sep 28;7(1):21. PMID 19785747.
Kieny MP. WHO supports fair access to influenza A (H1N1) vaccine. Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Sep;87(9):653-4. PMID 19784443.
Wise J. Children are likely to need two doses of swine flu vaccine. BMJ. 2009 Sep 25;339:b3969. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3969. PMID 19783577.

Thank you so much. Due to events identified above, I am going to be taking a break, just popping in occasionally for a little maintenance, but nothing too heavy. Perhaps when I have more time the pandemic will be history, and then we can get it up to FA. Your advice makes good sense. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Nice job with your new little one. I hope you and your family have a happy and healthy future ahead! Today better then yesterday tomorrow better then today! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Babies are fun (and sleep-depriving)! Good luck with your little one :) Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Search Analytics

Thoughts on the page Search Analytics. Not sure what to make of it. Spam? Could be nothing. New pages in this subject matter bring out the skeptic in me. ;) thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

I see you've been sucked into the SoL morass, or at least commented on it. There is a lot of confusion there. I don't think it is really so complex: I've just said [20] which attempts to explain what I think is going on.

You said: (14:00, 21 September 2009) measuring the speed of light with a meter stick is a tautology - no, it isn't (well not really), and several people seem to have made this mistake. Hopefully [21] makes it clear, but to belabour it in this context: once you've defined the speed of light, you can measure the metre. If you define the metre, you can measure the speed of light (assuming you know the second, in both cases).

You said: Would it not make sense to add one sentence to speed of light to indicate that as of 1983, the speed of light is known so accurately, and believe to be so invariant (in a vacuum, in an inertial frame) that is it use to define the length of a meter? - that is what I thought. I've done it [22], maybe it will last.

DT said: I had such a hard job trying to persuade some people on the talk page that the new SI speed of light was in fact a tautology. And it is surely a tautology. He is wrong. But I don't think anyone has made a very good ob of pointing out why (before me, of course :-).

DT is fond of quoting One then does not need to perform any experiment to prove the constancy of the speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology. Note that this is *not* the same thing as DT is saying above: this quote does *not* ssay that the definition is a tautology: it says that saying the SoL is constant is a tautology. That is true, but uninteresting, in the same way as saying that the metre was constant before was a tautology.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Jehochman's Day!

User:Jehochman has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jehochman's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jehochman!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers to that! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not!

With regard to your edit summary here; things will not be normal for you for at least 18 years. Congratulations. MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's quite true Jman, but congrats! — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Jacurek and the IP

Hi, Jehochman. I don't know if you've gotten a chance to review the question about Jacurek's possible socking and the IP whose edits on the Holocaust topic I'd mentioned earlier, but I guess I should withdraw my concerns about him. The IP I was talking about registered as Sourcelat0r and came to my page to discuss his edits, clarifying that I misread his comments on the Jedwabne talk page as a Holocaust revisionist interpretation. We've clarified the issue here [23], and he has my apologies. Sourcelat0r did not come across the way Jacurek did, despite the notable overlap in article interest I'd noted earlier, and I should say that I don't think it was him. Thanks for looking into my SPI question earlier.

Best, Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note however that A-N/PU has adamantly refused to apologize to Jacurek for calling him a Holocaust revisionist and accusing him of sockpuppetting, even after he found out he was completely wrong, and perhaps more disturbingly, even after he apologized to the anon IP that made the edits.radek (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Daedalus969

Thanks for warning Daedalus969. Should I do anything else or should I leave things as they are now that you're aware of the problem? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Save the diff of my warning. If there are further problems, show that diff to any administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Carljung

Is the IP user 24.187.199.178, on ANI about Ckatz, a sock? Ckatz reply on ANI seems to suggest it, could you go there and reply? Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please ask User:Hersfold and show him this thread. Hersfold ran a checkuser. Normally we protect IP privacy, though that protection can be voided if the IP is engaged in mischief. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just saw your notice, you have a new little editor in training! Wow, 8lb 9oz is almost ready to sit at the keyboard, that's a good size child. I hope all is well with both baby and mother. Many congratulations!!! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Congratulations! Until It Sleeps ^{T • C} 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Big time congratulations! All the best, nothing in the world compares -...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Life will never be the same :) Kafka Liz (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You're in for some fun times. Good luck. :) Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. You will be very familar with nappies in the next months, perhalps too familiar. Good luck with it! Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Wonderful new, enjoy! I wish you and your family the best in everything. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All the best Verbal chat 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I obviously missed something, but it's not hard to guess what it is. Congratulations! I wouldn't mind another one myself, actually. Hans Adler 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Shallow analysis

Your admonishment[24] said this[25] was original research. This is incorrect, it is entirely backed up by the provided reference on that page - please correct this. Thanks.

Had another look at this edit, recast to remove synth, didn't spot it before cut and paste - also changed the title of the section, as that too must be viewed as synth. HarryAlffa (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Hmm. Actual lies and deceit?

If I may quote Wikipedia:Civil#Identifying_incivility, 2. Other uncivil behaviors c)lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information

It would appear clear that this is exactly what Ckatz & Ruslik have done.

In the ANI, what is to be done about their removal of cited material? What reassurances can you give that this won't happen again? What of the other issues raised there? Ckatz accusation of harassment for which there is no evidence provided, or to be found - I looked, perhaps you will be more skilled than I and find the obvious evidence for this harassment.

I trust that you will re-evaluate your judgement of this situation with deeper analysis, re-open the ANI, and address Ckatz & Ruslik vis-à-vis WP:Civil. Thank you.

HarryAlffa (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not likely. You had best disengage from this conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed! You are a quick thinker! An evaluating, deep analysis in under 4 minutes of all the evidence provided in the ANI! I will waste no more of my, or your, time. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've been watching that thread for several days. It's not like you can suddenly convince me to change my view by posting half a dozen lines of commentary on my talk page. I've been deliberating on whether to block you for a month or indefinitely. You've been around since 2007 and seem to have some capacity for making useful edits, so I decided not to block you at all. I am really hoping you'll try much harder to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Teach me

You are a smart guy, I'm a reasonably smart guy. Maybe I'm overlooking something without realising it.

Here is the edit I made to the Aurora (astronomy) article

Auroras are the result of the emissions of photons in the Earth's upper atmosphere, above 80 km (50 miles), from ionized nitrogen atoms regaining an electron, and oxygen and nitrogen atoms returning from an excited state to ground state. They are ionized or excited by the collision of solar wind particles being funnelled down, and accelerated along, the Earth's magnetic field lines; excitation energy is lost by the emission of a photon of light, or by collision with another atom or molecule[26].

oxygen emissions: Green or brownish-red, depending on the amount of energy absorbed.
nitrogen emissions: Blue or red. Blue if the atom regains an electron after it has been ionized. Red if returning to ground state from an excited state.

Oxygen is a little unusual in terms of it's return to ground state, it can take three quarters of a second to emit green light, and up to two minutes to emit red. Collisions with other atoms or molecules will absorb the excitation energy and prevent emission. The very top of the atmosphere is both a higher percentage of oxygen, and so thin that such collisions are rare enough to allow time for oxygen to emit red. Collisions become more frequent progressing down into the atmosphere, so that red emissions don't have time to happen, and eventually even green light emissions are prevented.

This is why there is a colour differential with altitude, high altitude oxygen red dominates, then oxygen green and nitrogen blue/red, then finally nitrogen blue/red when collisions prevent oxygen from emitting anything.

Auroras are mostly only visible when a coronal mass ejection, or similar events, fires plasma, and also magnetic field, from the surface of the Sun toward the Earth[27]. The relatively high density of material means a higher intensity of Aurora, and the snapping of some field lines of the Earth's own magnetic field, and their subsequent reconnect, funnels and accelerates the charged particles[28] down in a large circle around the Earth's poles. Seen from space, these fiery curtains form a thin ring in the shape of a monks tonsure, or man's bald spot.

In the ANI[29] Ruslik said

Referenced? The only link (web link, not reference) that you managed to insert is this one⁺, which, however, contains almost no useful information. So, your version is uncited and contains serious errors and omissions. You removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions, and you are trying to use a confusing terminology, which you invented yourself.
— Ruslik

+[30]

Which I picked out these points

only one reference
"contains almost no useful information"
"removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions"
I am guilty of neologism

How do you think I should have described these points in Ruslik's comment? HarryAlffa (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no feelings on the initial content dispute. That's something I looked at, and could not figure out who was right. Your subsequent interactions were not particularly helpful. If you'd like my help mediating the content dispute, please start a discussion on the article talk page, and issue invitations to the relevant parties. I'll be glad to help. I've written a top importance, featured astronomy article. My opinions are not entirely ignorant. Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for comming to the conclution and closing the ARE case. And I can assure you that if you run checkuser there is no blocks or restrictions on whatever eventually found. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. If there was a former account, just make sure not to use it concurrently (at the same time) as the new one. If the account is retired, please keep it retired. Then you have much less chance of any problem. If you are attacked or provoked by other editors, please ask me or another administrator for help. It is much better to stop a problem before it happens, than to have to try to untangle the mess of accusations and counter-accusations after a fight begins. If you are right, there is no benefit in getting into a fight. Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

15 minutes too late

it seems. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You counseled me to try working with others. Here I am trying to pour some oil on troubled water, and you are jumping on me. Why? Is this topic anything to do with the ban? Absolutely not. No technical issue has come up at all. It all is about handling a dispute, which is exactly what you want me to engage in. Please explain yourself. Brews ohare (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith. I am not jumping on you. I am trying to steer you away from trouble. If somebody gets a ticket for speeding, it does not make sense for that person to take up the cause of another party who's been accused of speeding. Please find other things to do besides intervening at ANI in discussions about tendentious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained why this activity is heading toward trouble. If my proposals for resolution are not acceptable, so they won't be tried. Brews ohare (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing is adding noise and length to the thread, which prevents it from resolving. If you had good judgment, you would not have gotten topic banned. Please, stop disrupting Wikipedia with voluminous posts and argumentum ad nauseum. I'm hereby banning you from my talk page. I'm tired of dealing with you and your assumptions of bad faith. I see that you posted about me at User talk: Hersfold and did not tell me.[31] That reinforces my view that you're a disruptive editor out to make trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mr Unsigned Anon

I think it is lame that the other editor in the dispute was blocked and Mr Unsigned Anon was not but I think both of them needed a simple warning (like you did) so I'm happy to see him not blocked. I would be curious about the check user. It looks like the requesting editor could be assuming bad faith but the duck test appears damning here. I personally am just curious and wouldn't be surprised if it is a user who was trying to start fresh and was never blocked but we won't know without the check user. Is it a complicated process and would the check in itself reflect negatively on the editor if the results are negative?Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a link to the discussion you reference? Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#1.4 Mr Unsigned Anon or diff. I am hoping the accusation that he was previousley blocked is incorrect since he has actively engaged in discussion trying to get stuff straight more than once but it seems appropriate to check with the charge left hanging there and the other editor getting blocked. If it is an editor who switched names I don't even want to know about it. If it is a completely new editor then it would be right for the other editors to acknowledge the screw up.Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

I saw your edit on the ANI thread about Likebox. You might want to mark the thread resolved at the top (where I marked it unresolved) and/or notify Likebox about the resolution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to consider noting the restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. So much bureaucracy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All set. A little bureaucracy is a necessary evil. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Probation on Likebox

If you have come to this probation idea independently, I hope that you reconsider. If you are not familiar with the editing on the pages, you might get the wrong idea. The conflicts I am involved with are about two pages where I am trying to fix discussions which are embarassing to Wikipedia:

History Wars: The consensus for 60 years about the genocide on Tasmania is being challenged by some right wing Australian writers. These writers are overrepresented here, compared to the weight they are given in genocide studies. This is important to fix, if the coverage of history here is not to be a joke.
Godel's incompleteness theorem: I gave a self-contained proof that some editors didn't understand. This happens often, and much of the purpose of the discussion is to make sure that editors state clearly what they believe mathematically, so that if there is ignorance, it can be combatted, and this subject, which is sometimes misunderstood, can be presented clearly.

For 1: I have given about 10 sources (some of which I have read in detail) to show both that this is the position of nearly all genocide scholars and most historians, and to explain what the position is. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar sources. The other editors have decided that this material should not be in the article, and there is nothing I can do to oppose the two of them, except leave a trail of sources on the talk page and wait for someone else to join the discussion. Because of the continuing conflict, an uninvolved administrator (I think it was Nick D) has been looking over the editing, and concluded that I was not doing anything wrong.

For 2 (which is a completely separate issue): The proof of the incompleteness theorem is very well known in mathematics. There are many different presentations, one of which is due to Kleene in the 1940s. The Kleene presentation is the one that I put on the page, and I called it the "modern proof". To make it self-contained, I added the following innovation in exposition: instead of using the Kleene fixed point theorem, I had the programs in the proof print their own code.

Since this proof is extremely familiar to me, and I know for many years that it is identical to Godel in its fundamental construction, I did not see any problem with putting it here. On the other hand, "print your own code" is a slight simplification of the Kleene fixed point theorem, and using it in this exact way is a slight innovation, mostly pedagogical. But this is not a crackpot proof, it is equivalent to standard proofs.

The fix to the "OR problem" in the case of "print your own code" is just for me to publish it somewhere. I did not do so because I did not think I could prove any new theorems with an idea which is so trivial and only different from classical methods in a superficial way.

I urge you to reconsider your decision. Wikipedia must allow free debate without sanctions, so that when pages get stuck in a certain position, they can be unstuck. As an editor, I do not accept mediocre pages, so I push against consensus, knowing full well that this may take years of struggle. But it is important not to punish such behavior, but to accept it as a loyal opposition.Likebox (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have graduate degree in computer science, with a focus in theory, so I could probably help with Godel's theorem. As for Tasmania, I am not familiar with the subject. These are content disputes, and you are welcome to use dispute resolution to have your concerns addressed. You first stops might be WP:3O and WP:M. Have you tried those processes yet? It is very important not to bang your head against the wall. If your discussions with other editors are not fruitful, you need to take appropriate steps, rather than repeating yourself and becoming frustrated with them! Probation is an extremely mild remedy because it only prevents you from doing that which you should already not be doing. If you are editing properly, the probation has no effect on you whatsoever. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

About the probation--- you are right, in theory the probation would have no effect if I stick to 1RR. But in practice, such administrative decisions give support to the opposing editors, and they have been engaging in some administrative tricks. Any administrative action tends to send the message that their position will be protected from opposition. I worry that this will lead other editors to stay away from these pages, which have gotten stuck in a rut.

The reason I don't go to dispute resolution is because I have a naive optimism that these issues can be sorted out without high-handed intervention, just by reasoned discussion. This position might be incorrect and naive.

About Godel's theorem, if you have some experience with it, that's terrific. The discussion on the talk page on the page has been bogged down in stupid quibbles. The standard proof of Godel's theorem is not completely self-contained. One version goes like this (I like CS language for these sorts of things):

You first prove that the halting problem is undecidable. If a program P takes an integer input x, you can't decide when it will halt or not. The proof is simple: if there were a program HALT(P,x) which takes program P and input x and correctly tells you whether P on input x "halts" or "doesn't halt", then you make the following program SPITE(x):

SPITE(x) takes input x and computes HALT(x,x), treating x both as program and input. If the answer is "halt", SPITE goes into an infinite loop. If the answer is "doesn't halt", SPITE halts.

SPITE([SPITE]) (where [SPITE] is the code of spite considered as a large integer) then has the property that it is testing itself for halting, and doing the opposite of whatever is predicted. This is a contradiction.

The "innovation" I added here is to avoid using inputs: instead of having SPITE take input x, just have SPITE print its own code. This is done in many textbooks, and the process of showing that a program with input can be replaced by a program that prints its own code is called the "Kleene fixed point theorem". But in CS, it is an exercise to write a code that prints its own code, it is called writing a Quine.

So to show that the halting problem is undecidable, you write SPITE to do the following:

Print its own code into a variable R
calculate HALT(R)
if the answer is "halts", go into an infinite loop. If the answer is "doesn't halt", halt.

It's the same proof, but replacing the tricky self-reference using variables with a slightly more obvious self-reference from printing your own code.

Once you show that the halting problem is undecidable, you can note that a complete consistent theory of arithemetic would prove as a theorem "P does not halt" for all P's that don't halt, and "P halts" for all P that halt. This would solve the halting problem. So QED.

What are the issues with this standard proof (which currently appears on the page)? One issue is that it is in two stages: first you prove halting is undecidable, then you use that to prove incompleteness. If you want to fold the two proofs together, to make a self-contained proof is easy.

Suppose you have an axiomatic system S for arithmetic, then you can prove that this system cannot prove at least one true theorem. Write SPITE to:

Print its own code into a variable R
deduce all consequences of S looking for "R does not halt"
if it finds this theorem, it halts.

Now SPITE does not halt, and S cannot prove that SPITE doesn't halt (at least if S is consistent). The reason is that SPITE halts the moment S proves that it doesn't, and if SPITE halts, then S is sufficiently sophisticated to follow SPITE step by step until it halts and to prove this also.

So this is the folding in of the halting problem, so that the proof is self contained. There is one nice thing about this exposition--- the Rosser theorem becomes easy to prove. To understand Rosser's theorem, note the following: SPITE does not halt and S cannot prove that SPITE doesn't halt. But S can prove that SPITE halts (and that's a lie).

So construct ROSSER

it prints its code into R
it deduces all consequences of S looking for a) "R prints 0" or b) "R doesn't prints 0"
if it finds a), it halts. If it finds b), it prints 0 and halts

Now S cannot prove either "ROSSER prints 0" or "ROSSER does not print 0", showing that S is incomplete.

These are the rejected proofs. Are they original? So far, nothing new. But with another modification of the program I prove a theorem that might be new.Likebox (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Without checking your proofs in detail, the issue is not whether you are correct or not. That doesn't matter. If you think the "standard" explanations and proofs can be improved upon, by all means you should publish a paper on the topic! However, Wikipedia is the wrong forum for novel academic work. You need to 1) publish your ideas some place reliable, then 2) suggest them to Wikipedia editors for inclusion in our articles. As you have experienced, we are rank amateurs (mostly). We don't have the skill to review an academic paper and determine it's correctness. We have to rely on other publishers who we thing are reliable. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that novel results should go into a published paper. But these exposition tricks and rewriting are in not very novel. Folding in a proof of a lemma into the body of a theorem, isolating the construction in the proof, and simplifying the exposition, are not original mathematics in and of themselves.

When you say that Wikipedia can't determine correctness, I think this is a bit of a mistake. Editors often need to determine correctness for mathematics pages, and are generally OK at doing so, so long as they don't call the authorities in. Most proofs on Wikipedia don't follow the textbook, and some of them are very well written. Often they are clearer than the proofs in the textbooks.

On the other hand, there might be an extension of this type of discussion which might make it appropriate for a journal (the stuff I put on Godel's theorem would definitely not be suitable for a journal, which is why I thought it would be good here). If so, then it is perhaps too original for Wikipedia. But I hope it isn't, because it really isn't very original at all.Likebox (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I want to say the same thing in another way: this proof is not different from the version in textbooks, it is the exact same proof in the textbooks, written in English. In Wikipedia, you are supposed to write clearly. So if you have a textbook proof which uses specialist language, you can de-jargonify it. This is what I did for Godel's theorem here. It is not substantively different.

If Wikipedia does not do this simplification, its purpose will not be served. It will not provide accessible knowledge. The issue of rewriting and simplifying is the central concern in mathematical exposition. If the editors refuse to do it, or believe it is not important, they should change their mind. It is always possible to simplify proofs to the point where anyone can understand them, by breaking up the steps into chunks, by folding in lemmas, by suitable examples, and by preliminary theorems. In the case of Godel's theorem, there isn't even very much that needs to be done, because the proof is already pretty simple.Likebox (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be cursed to be in the position of being right, but not yet able to convince others. I recommend you let the issue sit for a while, and come back to it later. Time may be your ally. Don't push too hard. Perhaps you could find another article where there are worse problems to be fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice please.

This [40] is apart of a long going debate/dispute around the lead section. I like to ask you if Stellarkid (talk) way of arguing is according to the discretionary sanctions. I was to answer and confront him about lot of statements in this post but that might inflamate the debate even more and/or become a conflict. Short background. User nableezy put lot of effort keeping it a policy baseed discussion. Cptnono (talk) stongly oppose him but keep discussion on a fair level and motivating his disputetagging of the article well. Advice or intervention appreciated. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a content dispute. Don't raise the temperature. Instead, make your points calmly, referencing facts to reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. No, its not about content dispute, atleast anymore. Please look into this request. [41]. Stellarkid is here on a mission. These editors bring any editor interested in NPOV in conflict. Administrators must interfere much more in IP-conflict articles to keep NPOV and if needed take stand against attempt like this. Or Wikipedia have given up its ideals. Stellarkids request is a scam and he is a big part of the problem, dont accepting WP:NPOV and bringing Israels view into Wikipedia whatever cost. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The usual

Russavia has chosen to address me directly here: [42]. May I respond?radek (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how direct intervention would be beneficial. Why don't you ignore them for the sake of avoiding disruption and conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding conflict only encourages it. I cannot help but to consider the timing of Russavia's AfD during the course of the EEML proceedings as indicating his testing the limits of his topic ban and intending his action as a provocation. However, for now, I will refrain from introducing Russavia's AfD as evidence at EEML. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I voted delete. This article is not even questionable. It is rife with original research and sythesis. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated, I would have preferred some restraint on Russavia's part until the EEML proceedings are complete. I was not commenting on the merits of his AfD. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I see no reason that Radeksz can't address the concerns that I have raised with the article. So long as, like myself, postings are kept to the merits of the AfD; i.e. comment on the state of the article and why he believes it should be kept, and not comment on editors. I wouldn't so tedious as to claim that because Radeksz responds to my post, that he is breaching the topic ban. Discuss edits/articles, not editors. Do you know what I mean? Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than nominating Polish puff-pieces for deletion, why don't you focus on some of the many Russian articles that need attention? There is lots of work to do. Why choose something that is going to inflame other editors? Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not commented on any editor anywhere on that page.radek (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I am Russia topic banned, hence for me to follow your suggestion would entail me breaching that 6 month ban; needless to say, I am editing Russia topics on another wiki :) As far as I am concerned Jehochman, a puff piece (as you describe it) is a puff piece and it does not fit in with being an encyclopaedia, and as an editor who is here for the improvement of the encyclopaedia, such articles will be nominated for deletion; either via AfD or PROD, and I have done many of these in the past, and will of course continue to do so in future. The only reason I didn't PROD this one is due to 1) the fact that the sources are such that a casual observer would believe it is notable, and 2) the fact it had previously survived an AfD. If people are getting inflamed, they need to WP:AGF and argue to keep the article on the merits, which I believe I have presented pretty well as to why it should be deleted. But yes, I did learn of the existence of this article by looking at a previous Arbcom and finding it being mentioned there, and was quite surprised that it survived deletion the first time around. It is nothing more, nothing less than that. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's correct Radeksz, you haven't commented on any editor, but I was simply saying that as long as one comments on the article in question, and not editors, then I see no reason as to why you would be in breach of any Russavia topic ban. Commenting on the article, and not editors, is why I asked Matthead to strike his comments, both in the AfD and on his talkpage, and for the precise reasons that I presented. Assume good faith as to why the article has been nominated, and I am sure that decent discussion can follow. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I suggest you not follow my advice then. Go edit something the other disputants would not likely or properly object to. Why are you topic banned from Russia? I was not in on that decision. Jehochman ^Talk 16:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, ~~I bet you don't even realize that you have an anti-Polish bias, but~~ since you do have quite a following ~~here also, all I want to do is~~ I'd like to point your attention ~~in that direction because sometimes a word is all that is needed really~~ to the fact that I have been traumatized by Russavia's provocation and regret allowing it to color my perception of editors crossing over from the EEML proceedings into the AfD. --Poeticbent talk 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- What an obnoxious comment for you to make. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend your sense of personal pride. Just wanted to help, that's all~~, but the decision is yours of course~~. All best, --Poeticbent talk 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary

[43] I take issue with your edit summary here. I was not "defacing" the article. Just because it passed a GA review doesn't mean it stays a GA forever. I checked the GA review before moving that tag from lower on the page to the top. The issue was brought up in the GA review and I can't see a response there on how it was addressed. Just a catch all "I think I took care of the rest of the issues" down below. I had also started talk on the talk page prior to moving it if you'd like to contribute.--Crossmr (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You placed an ugly maintenance tag at the top of a good article. That's not a sensible thing to do. It just passed GAC a couple weeks ago. Your comment about not staying a GA forever is a bit flippant under these circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

maintenance tags are not "ugly". I placed a maintenance tag on an article with a very thorough description of why.--Crossmr (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point you are the only editor who supports placing the maintenance tag. Please wait a little bit and see if anybody else endorses that action. Right now it is one in favor, two opposed (myself and implicitly the GA reviewer). I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, but let's discuss this a bit. I will admit that I dislike maintenance tags because some folks (not necessarily you) go skipping through Wikipedia sprinkling tags everywhere, rather than actually improving the article. This particular article is very heavily trafficked. If you raise a concern on the talk page, it is likely to be addressed and fixed. There is no need to place the concern on a maintenance tag. It's just not making Wikipedia better, and in my opinion, the tag makes it worse. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No actually I'm not. I didn't place the tag on the article. I repositioned. Another editor had already placed it on their previously. So if you want to count heads its 2 and 2 and clearly disputed. That was clearly pointed out in my edit summary which said "moved to top". Its unfortunate that you have a personal issue against maintenance tags, but they are widely used across wikipedia and community consensus supports their use. In fact you'll find it was Rich Farmbrough who added the globalize tag originally [44] almost 2 weeks ago.--Crossmr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but two to two is still a toss up. Let's get opinions from more editors, and see if we can get the article improved. We are in complete agreement to improve the article. A tag does not make the article better; editing often does. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you've written that the GA reviewer has noted that he feels there is too much US centric information in the article. That means you're the only person opposing that viewpoint. Even though you've made a couple of, what I consider, rude comments, I'm going to assume good faith that you'll restore the tag since you're clearly in the minority until the situation is rectified. I have no intention of having the article delisted, but the tag should remain until the problem is resolved so that other editors who might not visit the talk page can be notified of the problem and lend assistance.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a place to insert it on the article talk page, so I'll opine here. With respect to Jehochman, that does look like a somewhat US-biased article. Virtually every section starts with the US viewpoint. Alphabetically, they should be near the end. Chronologically, Mexico should surely take precedence, and Canadian hogs were the first in the world to have H1N1/2009 virus particles detected within them. Obviously the CDC is taking the lead on the laboratory efforts, but pretty much every country in the world is addressing H1N1 - so it could be a little more well-balanced, GA or not. I won't get into my thoughts on public hysteria here, other than to note that on the first day of vaccine release in my area, which was supposed to be for the high-risk groups, pregnant mothers in their third trimester were waiting for hours in line behind the people who apparently couldn't read. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here in Connecticut we haven't had public clinics yet. They shipped the vaccine where it had to go, to midwives and pediatricians. We have a baby at home so we were all considered high priority. When I took the kids to the pediatrician for their shots, he tells me to get one. I say my doctor has none. He says, "fill out this form and roll up your sleeve." Done deal. I even got a Sponge Bob Band Aid.

As for the tag, there is a section on the article talk page, and if the issue is raised, there are multiple editors who will rapidly help. If that does not work after a few days, then add the tag. I just hate these silly tags and think people should not use them without first making an effort to correct the problem, or asking others for help. I've seen editors going through the wiki sprinkling tags here and there without actually solving any problems. Then the tags sit there for months or years and nobody does anything about them. Jehochman ^Talk 07:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the community likes them or we wouldn't have them. Not every editor has time to fix every problem on every article, but they might notice an issue while reading something casually. They're tagging it (and starting a talk page discussion if the reason isn't abundantly clear from the tag and edit summary) for the very reason that editors who may be more interested/invested/knowledgeable about the article can properly address it. The fact that tags sit on some articles forever isn't grounds for removing tags from articles before addressing the issues. That's an indication we should be encouraging editors to pay attention to those categories and work on article clean-up. Its not a reason to hurl insults and revert over it when its become rather apparent that the tag was warranted.--Crossmr (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Plain talk is not an insult. If I wanted to insult you, I'd do such a job, your ~~ears~~ eyes would melt! The article is in a proper state now. A few sections are tagged, and people are working on improvements. Thank you for your input. Jehochman ^Talk 08:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that I was "defacing" the article was an assumption of bad faith, there is nothing plain about that. The tag you claimed I was "defacing" the article with was already on the article, and since your removal plenty of people said, or been shown to have said that they felt the article was US centric. Defacing something has a very negative connotation and the implication was that was in somehow damaging the article be repositioning a maintenance tag. for someone who is an admin and has their own personal essay on rudeness, I would expect a much better choice of words.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy is back

Among the first edits he do after his 3rr block. " I suspect he's some unemployed, over-the-hill loser who still lives with his mommy and has lots of time on his " [45]. Please ban him. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

350.org

You have a history of protecting reputations on wikipedia, given your zealous reversions of my updates to David Copperfield's page. So, the article 350.org is now brought to your attention, in which a probable scibaby sock (certainly a SPA) called Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has smeared the organisation by implying they have some connection to the actions of an unknown individual. The sock broke 3RR edit warring it today, and was backed up by involved "admin" Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is ideologically opposed to the organisation. The incident in question [46] is unrelated, not notable and overweight on the page. I'm interested to see how you handle this. Here's the Talk page discussion. ► RATEL ◄ 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it all becomes clear

Some people might assume bad faith after reading this, but I do not. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and

Thank you for your recent update. With reference to recent posts here, I've attempted to keep that conversation together in once place regarding the currently unavoidable escalation of conflict in response to perceived provocation. I hope it results in constructive and thoughtful dialog. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note: Wikiproject Solar System revert

Regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=323272722

Case requests, irrespective of how frivolous, invalid, or malformatted they may be, are typically not to be delisted except when a member of the Committee states that no more action will be taken on the request and that it may be removed. On that basis, I've re-added the request. Hope this is okay with you. AGK 13:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

NO, it is not OK. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is not User:HarryAlffa's personal sandbox. As a clerk you should ask the committee for permission to move the content to the user's own space where you can help them draft a proper request. That bad request has been sitting there for many hours. It causes needless stress to other users when a malformed request is posted. Peoples' names are posted in a very public place, and they have not been even notified. You should be sensitive to the feelings of others, and avoid unnecessary disruption and demoralization of our volunteers. You should not enable disruptive behavior, nor should you edit war with another administrator. I am very disappointed in the clerks' handling of this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask the committee what they would like done. Meanwhile, the request stays. AGK 13:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw this many hours ago and was patient. The mechanisms for managing that page appear to have broken down. That's why I acted. Thank you for asking the committee. We should not cause people needless stress. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You could have contacted a clerk or an Arb many hours ago - that would have been faster. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I (naively) thought they would figure this out on their own. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, I didn't say that you weren't patient? Interestingly, the clerk procedures page does actually provide for frivolous requests to be removed. I'll look into whether I can make use of that. And you might have waited hours, but you didn't once alert a clerk to the request; we can't be everywhere at once. Ordinary editors should not remove requests, simply because it sets a bad precedent; only uninvolved clerks or editors authorised by an arbitrator should do so. In the long run, it causes much less headaches that way. AGK 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AGK said, Arbitration comment is forthcoming; have patience. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry; I see what you mean. AGK 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I should have spoken up earlier, because then I'd have been less annoyed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why clerks should watchlist Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and take care of malformed or frivolous requests. I don't know if the subject matter of this request is frivolous, but naming every admin who contributed to WP:ANI over a five day period definitely was. The user posted a 10,000 word statement, and cross posted to User talk:Jimbo Wales.[47] It doesn't get much more disruptive than that, whether or not disruption was their intention. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk Seddon assessed the original case request and blanked it for violating procedure. As a courtesy he left a note to that effect and alerted the clerk body and the arbs via email. The arbs advised us to sit and wait to see if a sensible case request ensues first. If it doesn't one of us will remove the case request within a day or so.

However I do not see why you feel that it is OK to disrupt our activities without even being courteous enough to contact one of us first. Had you asked via a comment on the case request page or via an email to Clerks-L, I would have gladly updated you as to the current status. Manning (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your activities are contrary to policy and common sense. People should not be allowed to use Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests to merely attack other editors. Editors should be notified immediately when their names are posted there. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Further comment. To reply to "you shouldn't edit war with another administrator": not to be obnoxious, but it as simple as this—I'm a clerk, and you aren't; I am authorised to revert; you aren't. It so happens that, upon reflection, I think you are correct in saying that the request ought to be delisted; but alerting a clerk would have been a less troublesome action than removing the request yourself. AGK 14:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny (in a bad way) that you have so much time to chastise me here for one edit, but you don't have time to monitor Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and promptly deal with attacks against good faith editors. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

But I'd much rather sit here and give you into trouble :-). No, not really; I just didn't notice the request on A/R, and at this point there are no outstanding clerk tasks to be done. The delay in a clerk visiting the thread in question might be because the bot that we use to track additions of requests to the A/R page has not recently been working. Performance certainly has been impacted because of that in other ways. AGK 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That's alright. I'm giving you a little bit more grief than you deserve. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening me that my activities are contrary to both policy and to common sense, and for reprimanding me for my "attack" on you. We all work hard to achieve a positive outcome, and as I said before, I have thus far and am always willing to respond to any question or request. Please do not disrupt our pages without contacting us first in future, that is all I am asking. Manning (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not disruptive to take an action that is necessary to improve matters. It might be out of process, but it is not disruptive. I'd appreciate if you personally would recuse from all matters related to me for a month or so. We seem to be butting heads too often. I'll do the same for you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

J, please let this go. There's a good reason we tend to give a little more leeway to every editor on the Arb pages, even when they appear off, and give every chance for someone to build up a proper case without placing added hurdles. If you see something egregious, ask the clerks or the arbs: this is the low-drama low-conflict way of doing things. — Coren ^(talk) 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Coren, if I make an issue on my own talk page, that's hardly bothering anybody. Nobody needs to watch this page (except me). I'd appreciate the clerks treating me more as an equal and less as a plebe. In my view editors, administrators, clerks and arbitrators are all on the same level. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We all are, but the arbs and clerks have a hard enough job without needless conflict with someone else over detalia of procedure. The reason we ask other editors to not step into such things and leave things for the clerks is that doing so is almost unfailingly counterproductive in the long run. Dropping a note in case we didn't notice something is useful, doing things yourself rarely is: the clerks may be holding off according to our instructions, or the best way to handle something may already be in discussion— and unilateral action might end up just forcing our hand in the wrong direction no matter how well intended.

Nobody here is saying "you're not worthy", but we are trying to say that stepping into the fray directly makes our work harder than it needs to be. That this generates some amount of frustration is understandable. — Coren ^(talk) 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yah. For some reason I have the arbcom-l and the oversight-l mailing addresses cached, but not the clerks' address. I should go look that up. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

clerks-l

lists.wikimedia.org. We love e-mail; it makes us feel wanted. AGK 14:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that would have worked much faster. I think the original request said more about the editor making the request than it did about those he was complaining about - I've removed it entirely and suggested, strongly, that he use other dispute resolution mechanisms (one at a time) first. In hindsight removing it completely was probably the best idea and in the future that is much more likely to happen with this as a precedent. I admit I saw it last night but I was on my way to bed and was both unsure what to do (except that I agreed that the removal of the complaint was absolutely correct) and felt that it was a non-starter but should be left up as it was until an Arb came along. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alert

Richard Tylman is listed at WP:DRV. Triplestop x3 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

derp

If Ottava Rima is under civility sanctions, shouldn't he be dragged over to arbitration enforcement? I'm unclear on the exact circumstances of his unbanning. Jtrainor (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. With compliments, Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My vote in the AfD

Since the clerk asked to keep this off the Proposed Talk pages, I am raising my question again here (please tell me where should I ask this if you don't want to discuss it). I will rephrase my question to: what was inappropriate with my decision to vote and/or my comment itself once the issue popped in my watchlist (see here for my comment on PD). The only thing that comes to my mind is that I could have added a disclaimer about having interacted with Poeticbent often in the past and being a party alongside of him in the ArbCm (but note that such a note was not made by the editor who made the post - so I assumed it is not important and made a comment just like I'd do in any other AfD that would've popped up in my watchlist). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima civility

Can you please link me to any restrictions he is under. Viridae ^Talk 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Twpo sections up, I should use my eyes more. Viridae ^Talk 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with being a microscopic life form: no eyes. Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's sanction

Doesn't that apply to all people? :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Ottava Rima thinks it does not apply to him. That's why it might do some good if he stops assuming bad faith of those who'd rather warn than block him. Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ottava_Rima_.22community.22_sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One month on the removal sounds fair. I don't think two would be a problem, if there's objection to one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've decided not to comment at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not

If you want to have a discussion about me, why not open up a RfC type system in which you break down multiple issues each with their own sections and have people discuss the matter. You don't have to post it at RfC, ANI, AN, whatever, but you can feel free to link it wherever you want with worry of me trying to MfD it or anything like that. I have my page for such discussions but no one ever uses it so it is effectively defunct. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting my talk page. I wish you'd waited for my response before starting an arbitration proceeding. Jehochman ^Talk 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Ottava Rima restrictions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Ottava Rima (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That CoM AN/I wasn't even up for an hour

I only noticed it because yours was the most recent edit to AN/I, why the quick close? CoM has a long and storied history of 1) antagonizing admins for sanctioning his friends or 2) antagonizing admins who have sanctioned him in the past when they take action against others. There's certainly a rich history of diffs to shot that his latest harping on Future's talk page is not the simple "getting abused" that admins can expect, but the latest in a long string of harassment and disruption. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, with all due respect to your good intentions there, I too would ask you to reopen this thread. This blunt "stop talking, because I tell you so" is getting used too often and too quickly these days. Yes, I'm an admin, but I am of the opinion that this kind of abuse is not part of what I should be expected to put up with. I want solidarity from my admin colleagues. I want them to do something to stop this. Seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AE

Hi Jehoch. I came here because I was curious about your close of the AE discussion, which I hadn't seen until just now as I was investigating the ANI report (I was busy working away at the pissing contest. I don't want to get mixed up with Tarc or FPaS here (I think their efforts at drama mongering, trolling and troublemaking speak for themselves). Would you be willing to discuss it on my talk page? I was just wondering if you could give me more of the background and a bit more explanation in support of your close. It seemed contrary to the the arguments I read in the discussion. Thanks. I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I did what was in the best interests of Wikipedia. The user has posted another unblock request. Some other administrator will deal with it. If the matter is still unsatisfactory, the user can appeal to ArbCom. We give administrators broad latitude to use their good judgment. The AE sanction was properly placed. There was no reason to overturn it. Thank you for your well wishes. If you need help with any articles or copy editing, please let me know. I'm looking for a new project. Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I well understand about the broad latitude, but several uninvolved admins and editors commented in the ANI thread and in the AE thread that there was no ongoing disruption and that the block should be lifted as it is punitive at this point. Part of my frustration with this whole matter is that the disruption is now being caused by the refusal of admins to correct this situation. That's abusive. Please respect the editors and admins who took the time to investigate and to comment on the facts of the case. Wikipedia depends on respect for consensus and we need to fix situations that are not constructive or conducive to collaborative encyclopedia editing. The disputants themselves worked out their differences with not even an attempt at assistance or mediation from you and the other admins. And it's one thing to say wide latitud eis given, but in this case other admins have looked at the same situation and concluded that the remedy is counterproductive and unhelpful. So maintaining the original block is an act of disrespect on the other editors and admins who have assessed the situation. As far as articles go I'm always happy to have help and input. I generally post my new creations on my userpage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that the original complaint that gave rise to the block has been fully resolved? If you can get the complainant to post something to that effect, I will reconsider. Jehochman ^Talk 01:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't even have an opinion on the underlying content dispute (I don't even know what it is). But I looked at the diffs and the discussions and there's just nothing there that warrants a month long block. And yes, the disputants ironed out their differences (although the disruption that's continued following it hasn't helped soothe and clam the situation any as they're caught in an unnecessary broader disruption). I don't think they're buddies, but they agreed they could edit together so I don't see what good the month-long block serves it just seems punitive. If something inappropriate occurs it's not very difficult to reblock is it? What is the problem?

I just checked my e-mail and someone has suggested there is some sort of secret evidence against that editor and that they're a long term POV pusher. But I don't like secret evidence any more than I like e-mail collaborations and off-wiki coordination (I get very few e-mail and send very few and almost all of them are unrelated to any editing or conflicts. I prefer transparency). If there's been problematic POV pushing there should be diffs. If they've already been punished for past transgressions then an expedited arbcom procdeeding or enforcement should be no problem.

What I object to is one admin deciding to block someone even when there is substantial opposition to it from multiple uninvolved parties. Believe me I understand it's not in my interest to get involved in these things. It's bad politics and I'm already under fire. But people have stuck up for me and I think it's important that editors be given a fair shake. I have no doubt that the blocked editor isn't perfect, but none of us are. These blocks gets left in place because it takes one admin to block and a perfect consensus to unblock, even though that almost never happens because there are people with grudges and who take sides based on their position on the underlying content dispute. It's not right. I'm a bit grumpy at the moment because I'm truly demoralized by Malleus's block. It doesn't serve any purpose and there was no objection made to the admin making malicious personal attacks first (which didn't phase any of us I don't think because we're used to that kind of thing). So I didn't give a shit about being attacked, it happens to me all the time, but I do object to the double standard. It makes for bad blood.

The rate at which new articles get speedied and then sent to afd, and the lack of collegial collaboration is all related to this toxic atmosphere of a gangland police state. It's a bad business. Sorry about the long post. Thanks for your consideration. Do what you think is best. I'm certainly not the only one who has objected to the month-long block. And again, I don't see why it would be so hard to just reblock if a new problem arose, but I'm worn out by it all. Admins march around doing as they please and are above all the rules. It doesn't make this place a whole lot of fun. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Russavia

Encyclopedia

2009 flu pandemic

Help desk software

References

'Twas me

EE arbitration

Please link

Flu pandemic GA

Request clarification

Your stance

Begging the question

CoM

Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA

Flu pandemic GA "gap-patching"

Wikis Take Manhattan

spam

Sock policy

NowCommons: File:Ingo Jones drawing.jpg

Attacks on other WP pages by Physchim62

Premature of closure of debate

Archiving request for comment

Question

Help

2009 flu pandemic

Congrats

Search Analytics

Speed of light

Happy Jehochman's Day!

Not!

Regarding Jacurek and the IP

Problem with Daedalus969

User:Carljung

Congratulations

RFA spam

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Shallow analysis

Teach me

Hello

15 minutes too late

Brews ohare

More problems with Daedalus969

Mr Unsigned Anon

ANI thread

Probation on Likebox

Advice please.

The usual

Your edit summary

Jiujitsuguy is back

350.org

Ah, it all becomes clear

Thank you, and

Courtesy note: Wikiproject Solar System revert

Alert

derp

My vote in the AfD

Ottava Rima civility

You're invited!

Ottava's sanction

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Why not

ArbCom

That CoM AN/I wasn't even up for an hour

AE