User talk:Jehochman/Archives 25

I am extremely distressed by the news items emerging from you poor, dear snowbound country and felt I must pop by to offer my sympathy and check you are still with us. I do so hope you are not holed up in your igloo; allthough, from what I can discern, the moment that snow was forecast, half the population of the USA decided to leave their nice snug little igloos to go out in their automobiles so they could become stuck on the road and post images to Facebook - which I think was very foolish. However, I'm sure, like me, you were very heartened to see that nice sandy-haired Mr Trump and Mrs Palin are going to become your next joint presidents. Mrs Palin's from somewhere near Russia so will be very experienced with snow, and Mr Trump owns lots of golf courses, so I expect he's very good with adversities - so things can only get better for you all. Now do take care and be sure you wear a coat and scarf if you venture out or you'll catch a cold and we have quite enough unwell Wikipedians as it is - any more of them and it will be too taxing for us all to bear. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your sympathies. If I may reassure you, we New Englanders are much hardier than our southerly neighbors. There was only three inches of snow here and it has been sunny, well above freezing. It was quite perfect yesterday to walk outdoors while watching the dogs chase each other across the fields. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What a blessed relief to know you are safe, I can now exhale - not that I've ever 'inhaled'. I've been thinking about your forthcoming national vacancy, quite a lot about it actually; I wonder: should I volunteer myself for the post? I seem to have all the requisite virtues....I'm very rich and have never had the slightest interest in global politics and education, and truly believe that everyone should own a gun and slaughter all passing wildlife. Those are, I believe, three very attractive electoral qualities - such qualities built the British Empire you know. Now, I've nothing against poor, dear President O'Bama, but I can't help pondering how much experience he and his followers have of snow, shooting grizzly bears and harpooning beneath the ice. Then there's poor, long suffering Mrs Clinton - one has to admire her fortitude, but one can't help feeling Mrs Palin would have had a shorter, snappier solution for an errant husband. Vive la Republican. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your response, I really appreciate it. I'll try to get some more experience and try again in a few years :).

Also, I really appreciate your concerns about me advertising my age. That hadn't occurred to me, and I'll be sure to take corrective action. Schuddeboomw (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've told WilliamJE to leave you be, and will enforce my advice if he doesn't listen. Would you mind enforcing the advice? I noticed [1] and [2] some time back, and [3] appeared on my watchlist a few minutes ago; all three continue the pattern of following me to articles that I've just edited and he's never before touched. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your edit at Planet Nine which changed the archive-url parameters of revived sites to point back at them. I wondered if it could really be necessary to remove the archive information to make the ordinary site show most prominently - it makes the reference text look a bit misleading, and would also mean extra work if the site disappears again. So I looked at the examples in Template:Cite web and discovered there's a dead-url=no parameter setting that achieves this. --Ørjan (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The original site is preferable. Archive.org pages load very slowly and often have broken layouts. Your solution gets the best of both. Jehochman ^Talk 09:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP's policies require notification of an ANI action. Don't the rules apply equally to all editors? Cla68 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

To clear that up, you can state at ANI the editor has asked you not to post again on their talk page so you haven't notified, and request somebody else review the matter and leave a notification if need be. I am sorry for the roundabout, but this is the best way to avoid conflict. Thank you very much for not posting at Jimbo's talk page for a while. That will help things resolve. I very much appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and hope this matter can be resolved politely. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jehochman. Hope you're well. If if it's alright, I would just like to give a head's up that despite being told to stay away from me, Winkelvi has come unbidden and of his own free will to bait me today at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, where I had reported a new user who was insisting on a WP:BLP vio involving a minor child. That's who Winkelvi is defending in order to dig at me. I'm flabbergasted. Why he won't stay away from me is disturbing, if he continues to add to this and this, perhaps you could remind him that he agree not to harass me anymore?

I'm sorry to bother you — believe me, I wish this weren't necessary — and I thank you for always having been vigilant on this. With deep regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not spam; I put it there, which, assuming your definition, technically makes it copypasta. Serendi^podous 18:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough! Given that somebody connected with Lorenzo Iorio has been on a multi-year sock and spam campaign, it is going to be necessary to rip out all references to him. It looks like a high percentage of them are spam. It's just a matter of not letting perfect be the enemy of good. Wikipedia will be much better if all his stuff goes. Granted, one reference here or there might potentially be useful, but I have yet to see his stuff be anything more than a pre-print. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently at the Yale Architecture School library. If you ever wanted to buy me a drink (perhaps a poisonous one) now is your chance! Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

	Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup, we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the virtual worldwide online event hosted by Women in Red. March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking the history of Wikipedia:sockpuppetry, I found out that the "Sharing an IP address" section was changed from the "Roommates and sharing an IP address" section you contributed at 16:11, 15 February 2008.Today, your sentences "If two or more users live or work together or otherwise share a computer or an internet connection," is changed to "If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection,".On your user page I can see that you are a computer scientist, so I want to ask you one technical question.The question is

Can a checkuser classify between the situation that the different users using one computer on one IP address and the situation that the different users using multiple computers on one IP address ?

Thank you. 200z (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The checkuser tool reveals three things: public IP address, client IP address supplied by XFF, and the user agent string. See [4]. The client IP address available through XFF helps distinguish between users coming through the same gateway, such as all the Verizon Wireless users. The user agent string is the browser software name and version. This is like a finger print. There are many browser versions. So, you might see two users at the same IP, but with different user agent strings. This could be two people sitting in the same coffee shop on the same wifi. If you see same IP, same XFF, and same user agent string, then that's probably the same person. There are a many different possible circumstances, and different ways to search IPs, IP ranges and IP's by user account. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I can understand very well.200z (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WP:ANI#Removal of userpage polemics. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, when you closed the discussion on User:Antidiskriminator's topic ban the other day, you apparently didn't update the entry in the sanctions log at WP:RESTRICT, where the sanction is still listed as active. Could you register your close there please? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Anybody can do this. Just link my diff. I'm out in the woods and don't like to do this sort of thing via mobile phone. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 07:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've told WilliamJE to leave you be, and will enforce my advice if he doesn't listen

Would you mind enforcing that advice firmly? He's even attacked me at an RFA page over an incident more than a year ago. When you're demonstrably holding grudges over a period of years, attacking others' actions as "colossal failures" for no good reason, it's beyond time for assumptions of good faith, beyond time for additional warnings. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

PS, see the issue in question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive893, section "Admin help needed blocking a sock farm". I was merely one of several admins who participated in blocking a group of accounts upon request by another admin (it was found to be a mistake, and all the blocks were undone), but William's targeted me in particular. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I just refactored William's comment. That RFA isn't the place to rehash an old incident. I don't think there's any place for rehashing it, in fact. Jehochman ^Talk 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Next time this happens, would you mind using technical means to make it impossible to rehash? Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears I need to take both of you to ANI. Unless you can cite a policy where my comment at RFA was improper....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Classic wiki lawyering. William, please leave my page and don't come back. This conversation is ended. Nyttend, feel free to report William and request whatever you want. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would stop redacting my talk page comments, made by me and published under my signature, to be something other than what I wrote, such as what perhaps you would have written if you were me.

I am allowed to speak sternly to some who has made my royally, personally angry -- not Wikipedia angry, but personally angry -- by addressing me

wow racist hate black people do you?

And I note that you didn't redact that. You might want consider your priorities. Herostratus (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You should consider learning how not to escalate a dispute. Next time you get so angry maybe take a breather for 24 hours before you post. Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"You are not behaving well" is just not that bad a thing to say, especially when it is true. And I didn't want to not escalate this situation. I wanted to escalate it to a satisfactory conclusion, which I did. We don't want people like that here. Herostratus (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. You all should too. Jehochman ^Talk 22:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

When I get some time I was planning to read all the docs on the above, then ask what the WMF is going to do when admins lock themselves out, or are locked out by clever probing. Perhaps you have studied this and would have an idea of the chances of that happening—I would guess almost certain. People like Jimbo and Legoktm can reclaim their accounts from people they know, and from devs who are willing to reset important passwords, but what about anonymous admins? Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just turn it on. The risk of these things is significantly less than an account being compromised. Jehochman ^Talk 09:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Any reason to remove them both since they both had a few hours to run? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

They were dated Dec 1, so thought they were a week old already. But I will put them back under that circumstance. Jehochman ^Talk 22:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Since they're both still listed at ITNC, it should be clear that neither are stale. And probably that one of them has an incorrect date. But meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In case you didn't know, and it seems many passing admins at ITN don't know the rules there, it's a maximum of four RDs these days, per the admin instructions (There is a limit of four RD items at a time in the section. ). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There you go. Just in case you weren't up to speed. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I was half right. :-) I don't care much for rules when common sense works. I just looked at the page to see if the layout was sensible. Jehochman ^Talk 00:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting from an American admin. It's probably worth noting that the marches have already shuffled off mainstream news having made little-to-no difference at all, and actually the train derailment was posted well after the marches so it would be the one to retain. I know it's surprising that the rest of Wikipedia isn't particularly interested in Trumpmania and its sideshows, but please don't start meddling to keep out-of-news items in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Aha, too late, another American admin Jayron32 has worked the magic to ensure Trumpmania remains. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The train derailment was on ITN for about 21 hours before being "trumped" by this pro-American news lobby who consider one story to be "more important" than another. The marches have been on for something like 80 hours. And now for at least another 12 or so hours. What's going on here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually removed that item. I did not re-add it. Please keep up. --Jayron32 18:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You ensured Trumpmania remains by removing the wrong item. Keep up. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I didn't remove the train. A few minor edits fixed the length. I'm not sure Jayron meant to remove it. In any case, I just put it back. The main page balance is fine. Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen you start up quite a few articles on major snowstorms, such as the 2015 blizzard and the 2013 blizzard. Since there is a potentially major snowstorm poised to strike the Norheast with 12–18 inches of snow possible, do you think you could help with expanding March 2017 nor'easter (there'll also be other editors so don't fee like your the only one)? Thanks. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am excited about the possibilities. Because our pool is already open I may be able to cross "go swimming in a blizzard" off my bucket list. Jehochman ^Talk 05:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Good day Jehochman! I saw your post at Talk:Emeritus. I discussed the issues with {{cn}} and {{LR}} at great length at User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_15#Dim_Days_of_Dolor, who all believed that tagging too many things was also an issue. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please edit and improve articles. If all you do is slap tags on them, that's not very helpful. Try to fix problems, and if you run into difficulty, use the talk page. Save warning templates for articles that are so bad they require a warning to alert the general public. Merely being imperfect is not a reason to put a big orange box at the top of an article. Jehochman ^Talk 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

In as much time as you spend tagging an article, you could use this tool to fix it. Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - To the extent that I am reasonably able to do so, I use Reflinks or refill to remove bare URLs from articles. However, if you read the section to which I referred, I mentioned that when I edit from a mobile phone, I might use {{LR}} to tag articles so that people who are on a computer are able to remove the bare URLs from the page. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

How about not doing that. Can you instead make your own list of articles needing attention and then process it when you get to a desktop? Jehochman ^Talk 23:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - I am going to disagree with you. What if I am on the road for several days? If I should never use the tag, then the {{LR}} tag needs to be deleted. I discussed guidelines for my tagging months ago on my talk page, and they have worked out just fine for the most part, until you got involved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• If you are on the road, enjoy your trip. Don't feel pressured to edit. Maintenance tags often don't add value. They are visually disruptive to the user and may falsely convey that there's a serious problem with an article when there isn't. Let's agree to disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - More often than not, when I put an {{LR}} tag on an article, within hours, the tag and the bare URLs are removed. You seem to be the only user that feels this way, I was told not to put too many {{urs}}, {{cn}} or {{otd}} tags on an article. You are welcome to begin an RFC on the issue. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. Wikipedia has ~5,000 active editors. We have millions of active readers. The readers aren't participating in an RFC. The readers aren't complaining to you. Think about what is best for the reader. Fix articles if you want to. After making a good faith effort to fix something, if you can't resolve the problem, and the public needs to be warned about, then you can tag. Otherwise, if the problem is not serious to the public, leave a message on the article talk page suggesting improvements. The problem with tag bombing is that tags aren't meant to be a substitute for article talk page discussion. Tags in article space should be used sparingly. (And stop with Reply. It's annoying me.) Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year!

Jehochman,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi, I see your posted a comment, in reply to the notice I left on an IP user's talk page, about the removal of his complaint. I just wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't the one that originally removed his complaint. (I just happen to agree the removal). While some times newcomers are "bitten" as you put it, perhaps evenly prematurely blocked, this does not give them a free pass to evade that block by using multiple IP accounts to post complaints on project talk pages and then go on to disrupt and edit-war on other pages, all the while posting continuously obnoxious insults via deceitful edit summaries. I also hope your post doesn't encourage this person to continue this behavior as a "victim", once the blocks have expired on any one of the at least 3 accounts he has been using. If he had a legitimate complaint about poor reception as a new user and/or an unjustified block, there are proper avenues for him to pursue and we should encourage people to use those venues. I wouldn't want to see anymore project (or other) talk pages disrupted by off-topic, personal complaints, and I don't imagine you so either. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a minor clarification note that bureaucrats are not functionaries. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

“Important and powerful users” Jehochman ^Talk 02:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that you had also stopped by the Hartford Station on opening day. Actually, I was there only 2 hours before you stopped by. Of a course I missed out on any trains, but I was on the platform. —JJB^ers 03:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I was there twice because my son was taking the train to and from NYC. When were you there? Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Around 2:30 pm on the 17th. —JJB^ers 01:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I missed you. I was picking him up at 10pm on the 17th. At 2:30 you should have seen the Vermonter heading north, if it was on time. Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:ACE2010/Voter guides has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kelly hansen.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Uw-coi has been nominated for merging with Template:Coi-stern. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 16:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Given that the sockpuppetry is only suspected, that they have agreed to stop editing the articles mentioned, and there is a growing consensus to unblock per WP:ROPE at their talk page, I'm minded to unblock. But I want to check what you think first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:ROPE is a good strategy. Jehochman ^Talk 22:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598^(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing a bit much from the simulation section I think, there is no longer a reference to Sedna-like or perpendicular orbits, you planning to add some of that back in a rewrite? Oh, and on the dynamics section, I have thought of removing much of the details from that to an article about eTNOs so it wouldn't be taking up too much room in the Planet Nine article, but didn't feel the separated eTNO article sould be justified until after Planet Nine was found. Agmartin (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We need to streamline it. The long walls of detail are offputting to casual readers. We can make sub articles. We could have an entire article dedicated to the hunt for P9 and go into extreme depth. To get gamma ray burst featured I had to create two sub articles. I already moved some stuff to TNO. Go ahead and create eTNO. Please do. Jehochman ^Talk 03:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of streamlining there is too much discussion of other hypotheses before the reader gets to Planet Nine. That was the primary reason I started an extensive rewrite of the article last year. Agmartin (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What’s messes up? I will fix it. Please provide any specifics. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's more the section title, the image squashes it and when I tried to fix it the images wouldn't display. Agmartin (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Give me a minute. I know how to fix that. Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done The solution is to use {{-}} which inserts a div with CSS property "clear:both". This stops an image from forcing a heading to wrap. I know very little about astronomy, but I'm fairly good with code. Jehochman ^Talk 01:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To Jehochman:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!

Or not.

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It’s been a long time. You work so quietly and efficiently. Please do stop by again any time. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		When I recommended it for FA consideration, I forgot what a living hell FAC could be. I hope you aren't discouraged to try again. It really does deserve it. Serendipodous 20:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m waiting until we have two supports lined up, then go back and fling it at them again. We’ll get it on the next orbit. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't give up yet. I would be happy to continue my review if you are interested; and when you finally re-nominate, you would have one support right from the beginning already. The article is definitely on a good way. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, let’s continue. You could leave suggestions on the article talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: a new editor who seems to have a high degree of expertise seems to have fixed some of the rough edges today. Could you take another look and see what needs doing? Jehochman ^Talk 02:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm on it now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to remove my comment because you believe a closure to be sacrosanct, fine; but this edit summary is downright insulting, when I explicitly said in my edit summary that I was only posting it because I had typed it already. Comments are routinely included in a discussion after conflicting with the closure: equating that with battleground behavior (which is what that essay is about) is inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Editors at ANI need to respect thread closures. Otherwise it’s endless chaos. Violating the spirit of WP:LASTWORD is uncivil. You must not use Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. That’s not what we’re for. I know you agree. I do not accept your edit conflict excuse. The delay was 16 minutes. If you have an edit pending that long and the thread closes, you should respect the closure.

Beyond doing what’s right, you also need to look like you’re doing what’s right. Others are watching and will emulate. I know you’re a good editor, but I don’t want you to model behavior that could inspire others to push the limits. Jehochman ^Talk 12:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I say again; if you're keen on enforcing the closure, that's fine with me (although you do realize there were two comments in that thread after mine, one inside the closure, which are still visible?), just don't accuse me of doing something I didn't; there's a difference between wanting to win an argument, and wanting to share my views with a number of editors with whom I have an entirely positive relationship. Treating genuine attempts to resolve that mess as incivility is counter-productive. "You must not use Wikipedia as an ideological battleground" I don't know how much you've been involved with ARBIPA stuff, but if you believe I'm the one turning anything into an ideological dispute, you don't know what you're saying. I don't want to keep arguing about this, so I would ask you, when examining disputes about a contentious topic, to examine the history a little, and not simply take action on what you see to be the most obvious problems. Vanamonde (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A question: I understand that the calculations I did for the most of the plots on my blog would count as original research, but what about noting just that the longitudes of perihelion for the defined group of comets was clustered? The data is from a publicly accessible database, it just required knowing what to download and Ω+ω to get the longitudes of perihelion? C1978V1 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If you've got good ideas, please get them published! Wikipedia unfortunately can't publish anything that isn't published elsewhere. Your suggestions would be synthesis instead of original research. If you take published data and put it together and draw a conclusion, that's synthesis. The conclusion itself needs to be published elsewhere. Wikipedia is just an aggregator of published facts. We don't do any synthesis beyond basic math. Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the complaint against Fowler&Fowler[5], is this and this by Highpeaks35 beating a dead horse? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignore it. Sometimes the best answer is stern silence. Jehochman ^Talk 12:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning but that's now the fourth time the discussion has been closed prematurely, and I'm getting pretty fed up with a certain group of users attempting to gag all opposition to their view. Deb (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Like this one. Deb (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The user has never filed an unblock request. That’s the first step. Jehochman ^Talk 10:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The main reason for that is that the block was imposed against consensus. But I don't propose to do any more on his behalf now. I've had my full ration of abuse for today. Deb (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Let them advocate for themself. It will resolve more quickly and with less animosity. Can you imagine how an editor feels when people start voting to block them? They will permanently hate every person who votes yes. We do not want to spread such bad feelings. Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A bit of shutting of the stable door there... :-) Deb (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman. You moved the Kiwicherryblossom discussion from AE to AN, but you also copied over the structure and AE instructions. Since the discussion is now at AN those instructions don't apply because it's a community authorized general sanction discussion subject to the consensus of the community. There is no section reserved for admins, nor is there a word or a diff limit. Perhaps you would consider removing the extraneous instructions and section headings to avoid confusion?.- MrX 🖋 12:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t mind if you do that, but the sections may be helpful because they could keep the discussion focused. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A focused discussion. What's that like? - MrX 🖋 18:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for relocating my request. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing all that research. It one of the best enforcement requests I have seen. Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Autism quackery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hhkohh (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Should I stop? I think I have France, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, Thailand ok. Spanish, might be ok soon. But I'm worried about Russia especially which I am not able to correct. Serbian Portuguese and Ukranian are happy with the present articles, no real comments, just happy to let them organically improve. Its important, we finally agree on English. I care too much tho. E.3 (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you can translate articles from one language Wikipedia to another, that is useful. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I was the person who nominated, years ago, the AfD for Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience (read all about it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific). In the interim, I would argue that the page has gotten worse and is now dangerously WP:OR. But this is probably a list and so the WP:SYNTH issues tend to be swept under the rug (as they were in the discussion). I've always had issues with lists like that anyway because WP:LISTCRITERIA just requires consensus for inclusion criteria rather than, say, a third-party source that has assembled a list for us to model ours on. Be that as it may, I'm not sure what this subject actually is. Maybe it is just plain astronomical pseudoscience? Whaddya think? jps (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You can post a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and link to both discussions. I am fine with a rename in addition to a merger. Astronomical pseudoscience sounds like a fairly good name. If any section gets unwieldy, it can become a child article. My theory is that it's best to merge all crap together and then sort it out. This eliminates redundancy and ensures consistent nomenclature and a sensible taxonomy. Jehochman ^Talk 18:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My inclination is to think about completely rewriting the article. There are a bunch of astronomical pseudoscience ideas that deserve discussion including: those listed here. My favorite resource on the subject includes such classics as Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy and Andrew Fraknoi's "Top 10" ASP curation: [[6]]. jps (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Astronomical_bodies_in_pseudoscience_and_the_paranormal#Merger_proposal. jps (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Planet Nine article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 9, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 9, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for the support. This place can be rough. Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine a few people on each side still have some bile they're looking to get rid of, and you just volunteered to be the recipient. But (for reasons laid out in your talk page post) I don't actually think it will be that bad. Hope not, anyway. I'm actually pleasantly surprised my blanking stuck. Perhaps I'm wiser than I thought.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy with the close and the rationales presented. Somebody had to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

planet nine

Thank you for quality articles around astronomy such as Planet Nine and Gamma-ray burst, for SS Edmund Fitzgerald, for Event Horizon Telescope to In the news, for a candid response to today's arbcase request, with an added grain of hunour, for "In Connecticut beautiful scenery is routine", - Jonathan, repeating (16 October 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for coming to your inviting couch so late. I confess a 28bytes grudge, but he's back ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted. P

Now that you are relaxed on the comfy couch, please consider letting go any grudges. I feel better when I do. Jehochman ^Talk 09:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Some will take more time. Yes, I know it would be good for me. I am not at ease with all of them who called me out for battleground behaviour, and our highest court took that wording, because my highest degree of edit warring was restoring the "better" option for our readers weeks after a little edit war on Easter (2013), imagine, - but I improved relationships with most of them. Not a grudge, but I feel helpless about approaching someone who declared I drove him off the project, but I wouldn't know how (2016). (He's back.) I haven't forgiven the one who said "good that was he desysoped" as the response to my sadness about a user's death. Well, yesterday a friend died in real life, and what is all our little bad memories in comparison? He's pictured on an image that will be deleted because some non-free art hangs in the room, a public space. - Enough, that's what you get for offering a comfy place ;) - thank you for listening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to work on revising the travesty that is NPROF? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 08:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you say party? I like parties. Is there beer? Thank you for your service. It is a tough and thankless job. Jehochman ^Talk 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason you didn’t want to discuss this informally? What’s you’ve done here is needlessly non collegial. Your approach makes editing Wikipedia a misery. I hope you are happy with the result. Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, re: this, did you mean WMF rather than WMD. Looks like a Freudian slip to me :) - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you have dealt with the issue above. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I blame autocorrect. Curiously, autocorrect knows FRAMBAN and even capitalizes it. It’s either machine learning or somebody who works at Apple. Jehochman ^Talk 07:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I also enjoyed stew man argument — reminds me of soup opera! Now I'm hungy! El_C 03:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I saw that. It’s amazing how much autocorrect improves my writing. Nice to see you around. It’s just like old times. Have a look at my successful FAC from earlier this year, Planet Nine. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, likewise. Will do — it looks pretty good (I protected from some nonsense back in April, but I'll definitely have a closer read). Yeah, machines make for the best humour. Autocorrect is an (un)natural born comedian! El_C 03:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I see you've mentioned at least once that you will accept e-mails, so I'll point out that I also have e-mail enabled, just in case you want to berate me or something. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Never in a million years would I berate you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action. Please have some virtual (and real) fruits to get you through the work. starship.paint (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Nom, nom. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The user name you just changed visibility on for edits to User Talk:El C is still visible in Marnette's last revision to that page. Schazjmd (Talk) 23:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for pointing that out. Jehochman ^Talk 03:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

WMD indeed. Freudian or not, it made me crack a smile. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I saw that typo and decided to leave it. Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hah; The error that reveals a deeper truth. Funny. Promethean (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if posting that RFAR was wise of not, but for someone who hasn't gone chasing diffs, it was a useful summary. Thanks for doing the work. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. It took hours and hours to confirm all of it. Black Kite and others seem to think I'm an idiot for merely confirming past speculation that was already known. Sometimes the answer to a question is standing there in plain sight. I think posting the RFAR will prove helpful because it shines light on the problem and it identifies those who are part of it. They come like moths to a light. Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that it shines light on both parties, which is probably what T&S wanted to avoid in the first place, whoever the complainant was. And we still don't know if this was the trigger for Fram's ban - indeed, it probably isn't... you haven't helped here, you really haven't. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

All the trolls already know who the target was. At least this way the decent editors know too, and they might help defend her going forward. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Everyone who has read any of the pages involved knew about the theory that LH was involved already. But what if it wasn't LH that was the trigger for Fram's ban? The fact that none of his interaction with her was recent seems to indicate that it wasn't ... that was my point. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the LH matter generated two warnings to Fram, and then somebody complained about something entirely different, such as the "Fuck ArbCom" diff Fram disclosed, and WMF's bureaucrats checked the third box and issued a ban. "Three strikes and you're out." Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Very possible - but we already knew about the LH warnings, the issue here is what triggered the ban. Because, as has been talked through already, very few people think that a single "Fuck ArbCom" edit deserves anywhere near a desysopping and a year's ban. And that should have been dealt with here anyway. LH (with all due regards to her) is somewhat irrelevant here. Black Kite (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I think they have a card with Fram's name on it and three boxes. They need to check all three boxes and then they can ban him. They were looking for that third check and were happy to accept any pretense supplied to them. This is not a good way to do community management! Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It amounts to contempt for our processes, for the rights of the accused, and if you are right, for what we are doing here: collaboratively building an encyclopaedia. However, it seems to me we knew just as much 3 days ago as we know now. With the exception of ArbCom's bottomless capacity for issuing vapid statements and not defending the community against the WMF. And we didn't need computer analysis to know this little. So where do we go from here? I can't get people to fork. So, personally, I plan to clear the decks using my userspace and then try to edit as little as possible next month, out of disgust and because Iridescent makes a good case that the one thing they pay attention to is increases and decreases in the "highly active editor" number. And because I have to stop working here anyway if it's to be taken as acquiescence to the WMF's rule, regardless of how high or low I am personally on the hit list. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, how much of your evidence is after March 2019...? That was when Fram was given the second warning and essentially told to observe an IBAN with L. starship.paint (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Two diffs. I labelled them to make it more obvious. If you can find recent diffs that would help, please do post them. My analysis started in 2016 and went forward. I don't have unlimited time. I did what I could. Maybe it's not enough, but I tried. Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So, it wasn’t enough for ArbCom. But thank you for trying, Jehochman. I know you did your best. I remain puzzled at your initial attempt to protect L. Those following the case properly would have known diffs of L was mentioned in Fram’s 2nd warning, and Fram was effectively (but not officially) IBANed from L, so L must have been a target of his harassment. starship.paint (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please nobody close the ANI discussion mentioned above before Fæ has replied to my comment. I raised several points, including Fæ's talk of "desysop requests", and I'd really like to see a response. Or feel free to answer on my page, Fæ. I'm a little surprised that you'd start something like that on ANI and not follow up when people reply. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

We reopened the old one. Feel free to make yours a subsection. I fear this is going to end badly, like the last five or ten times we rode these rapids. Maybe I'll just run it to Arbitration to nip it in the bud. Jehochman ^Talk 19:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

From a mobile ANI is hard to edit. As far as I recall I have not mentioned desysops. Diff please. --Fæ (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. Fæ, could we please have a massive, undeserved assumption of good faith? For the moment assume Giano will remove the joke. If he doesn't we will figure out what to do then, calmly, and without flaming anybody. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. It doesn't look like you've read my ANI comment, either. Here it is. You mentioned desysop requests in the edit summary to your (malformed) pings, here, and I asked what you meant by it. Please take it to my page or ANI; I don't want to abuse Jehochman's hospitality, and I don't want to repeat myself further, either. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

Grrr!! Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that Sonja Veselinović was just deleted. Is there a way we can restore the page? I think that's a shame for the page, which was overall well written and with solid refs. Cheers, Mm.srb (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I can restore it if you promise to check it carefully. The user who created it was posting crazy incoherent stuff and it is 99% likely a CopyVio or hoax. The user’s work cannot be trusted at all. Everything needs to be checked completely. Jehochman ^Talk 01:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I restored the article. Based on a second look at the user's contributions it seems possible that their account was compromised and taken over by a troll. The defects of later contributions are not evident in the earlier contributions. Jehochman ^Talk 02:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is overall okay, it can be improved but on the most important note - nothing bad or incorrect can be found in the text. Thank you sir, I hope that we did not lose any other articles because of this possible hack, or whatever it is. AustrianFreedom (talk · contribs) is a fine editor and I find those disruptive edits to be very strange, to say the least. Mm.srb (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I will try to contact them via email if they have it enabled and let them know their account is blocked, most likely because it was hacked. If they can prove that they are back in control of the account and change their password, we might be able to unblock them. I'd hate to lose a good editor over something like this. Jehochman ^Talk 03:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for taking action, Jehochman. [7] I hope you will not come out worse after this. I just noticed I already gave you strawberries, so here's an upgrade! starship.paint (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm pretty safe because the action is at least arguably correct and I have not even reverted another admin, let alone repeated a disputed action. I haven't crossed any bright lines; going WP:ROUGE isn't sanctionable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for doing the right thing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the talk page also be deleted under G8, or is this a case where it is better to keep it? In which case it might be better to add an edit notice in case another admin is minded to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to jump on a call. Feel free to add the edit notice. I'd rather minimize deletions because the conversation on that page is useful for transparency. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added a notice at the top of the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Jehochman, I'd just like to alert you of paragraph 4 of my statement on the Signpost case, where I provided some evidence. This is because I expect to leave Wikipedia shortly, and I may not be involved in the ArbCom case further, so I'm spreading the word. starship.paint (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report contains many of the same "scandalous assertions without evidence" that resulted in deleting the associated page (good call, in my opinion). I think the talk page should be removed as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon - I've added {{BLP}} to the talk page. Ordinarily it would be deleted, but there are also reasons to keep the page for now. Expect it will be deleted in the fullness of time. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind if I grabbed this and reposted it there as a quote but signed by me? I feel the same urgency and felt you put it eloquently; and I am clearly some kind of glutton for punishment. :) --Xover (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I hereby license my melodrama for your use, here or anywhere else, free of charge, for all eternity. Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Heh. Edit-conflicted with Jimbo. But now posted. :) --Xover (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That's was it. The magic diff that triggered a response. [8][9] Thanks for your help. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Heh heh. While nobody has yet credibly accused me of excessive humility, even I would be hesitant to claim credit for solving the current crisis with a single diff. :) --Xover (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll be offline for a while. If you want to complain, please leave a note here and I will reply when I return. Jehochman ^Talk 05:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to complain! Wait, what are we talking about? El_C 05:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've done something impetuous.[10] I'll probably get myself banned. Jehochman ^Talk 05:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I think you're gonna be fine. Anyway, I got your six. El_C 05:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean to remove the indef move protection here? Looks like maybe you meant to make the semi-protection expire instead. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Good catch. Jehochman ^Talk 21:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The request for arbitration WMF and Fram has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. – bradv🍁 13:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice and I’m sorry for creating unproductive work. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Authentication, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Proof, Assertion and Identification (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Some editors take the view that if you aren't with them 100%, then you must be plotting against them. Of course, things are usually more nuanced than that. Jehochman ^Talk 05:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy, the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems ...

Agree. Arbcom told me once that I treated Wikipedia as if it was a battleground, and should better conduct myself. The "battle" was about infoboxes here ("disruptive"), here ("Infobox warrior") and here (cute and peaceful discussion still on the talk), not to mention that I added "systematically" (!) infoboxes to the short stories by Franz Kafka, - even the arbs in the 2013 case noticed that it was perhaps not a sin. Anyway, once branded like that, you are stained for life, it seems. Every newbie asking why no box must have been sent to battle by me. I have survived so far. Hope you will, too. After my experience with arbcom, I am not sure if they will manage to solve the kafkaesque situation or prove again to also be an arbitrary controlling system, but "Hope is precious and great joy is found in living" - helped me when 28bytes retired the first time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

ps: In the 2014 link, the place where I sang "Freude, schöner Götterfunken" is Unionskirche, Idstein, which - in a second round - became GA on 3 July, Kafka's birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts here. I'd like not to be as formal as an interaction ban, but would like to have a template saying: "Please leave me alone, because I contribute here for happiness; as an enchantment against sorrow.", wording borrowed from LouisAlain and Fylbecatulous (her editnotice). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Poof! Template:B-gone Use it well. Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Merci. Free for anybody to use, LouisAlain first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Unblockable users, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You are so humorless. Please go away and never come back. Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 😜

So I hear that you fancy yourself an unblockable — I can help you with that misapprehension! El_C 01:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Archtransit got me already.[11] But then he was banned. Now that's what I'm talking about... Jehochman ^Talk 02:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Finally a precise definition of 'unblockable'! It seems I don't qualify, after all. Black Kite is not only unbanned almost a decade later but still an admin! [12] And the same is true for the two admins I was enforcing BLP against when the block struck, except one has since quietly disappeared. All three have empty block logs except for accidental self-blocks. I think we need Category:Safely abusable users, too. Hans Adler 03:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Bloody hell Hans Adler, I apologised for that mistake at the time! [13] We admins aren't all perfect, nor do we claim to be. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but although a borderline case, that actually qualifies as a non-apology apology. The funny thing is that I am not interested in apologies at all, just in clear signals that lessons have been learned and mistakes will not be repeated. With your punitive GRAPEVINE block you violated two policies simultaneously while the full information was staring in your face (my 3RR-self report [14] was clearly intended to prevent a 3RR block based on a predictable report with incomplete information [15]; I linked WP:GRAPEVINE and the on-going BLP/N and ANI discussions). In your 'apology' you called this '[not] an appalling error' and claimed I had admitted edit warring 'inappropriately'. I don't know if you still make blunders like that, but I have no reason to think you have learned the right thing from the event. (As opposed to some wrong message about not blocking well-connected users or similar.) At the time I sort-of-apologised myself, but that was merely for not idiot-proofing my self report. As any competent 3RR admin would have understood my report without a lecture on policy basics or a clear statement that I don't want to start filling my clean block log, I thought the links would be enough. That was a misjudgement. Hans Adler 06:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In my view every good faith user should be unblockable. If they do wrong, you talk with them and convince them to change it. Look at my logs. You’ll see I usually do only indef blocks. Only when all hope is lost should a user be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 08:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If the world is too much for this category, perhaps the whole collection of [unblockable, undeletable, irresistable] users, categories, pages, and philosophies can be posteritized on a userspace page, guarded by a zilla. – SJ + 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a format for red-link categories that the police tolerates, - on my user page, help yourself. - I am completely disinterested in blocks and their logs. I tell user quality by other criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

...had the look of a blocked troll the moment I saw them. I wonder who they are? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a sock. Probably a banned user. It’s sometimes better to tag and release. Jehochman ^Talk 09:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee, AGF and all that but if it's not Hillbilly Holiday the coincidence is extraordinary. ‑ Iridescent 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes - and now checkuser blocked, I see. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I am caught in a range block on Meta. Range is 188.29.164.0/23. The blocking admin hasn't edited there or here for about ten days. I cannot edit my talk page on Meta to ask for help. I access the internet through my mobile provider, so my IP changes from time to time. I do not have another means of access readily available. I think I used to have some sort of exemption from these sort of blocks, as I've been caught up in them on here before. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll try. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, seems to be sorted now. DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: You replied to another editor in their section, but that's not allowed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not too concerned because a clerk will fix it however they like, and I'll try to follow convention going forward. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you have done fine overall, in all the recent upheavals, at least that I know we are on the same side, and I take you as genuine. So I take back any harsh words, and wish you the best. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That means a lot to me. Happy trails. Jehochman ^Talk 03:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In [16] you wrote "The ought to focus on..." Did you mean to write "They ought to focus on..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

They. Jehochman ^Talk 00:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

[17] Yikes! That's terrible! Bishonen | talk 12:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC).

I believe that for males, it's mumps that's a danger to the pubic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the news I was thinking of. [18] The measels outbreak is centered in New York. The victim had been vaccinated, but vaccines are not 100% effective. We rely on herd immunity to keep everybody safe. When the number of holdouts gets too high, they put everyone at risk. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Um, note your typo of "pubic" vs. "public." Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a policy to never correct funny typos, and to earnestly ignore them. And it worked! The two best editors on Wikipedia showed up at my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen that "typo" before, most recently on Drmies's page.[19] I'm beginning to suspect it's the autocorrect doing it. Perhaps it's got pubic, as the more important word, in its lexicon, but not public. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC).

Yeah. Look at how autocorrect butchered my comment. [20] I am paying out of state tuition ($$$$) for my son to study linguistics and data science at UC Berkeley in hopes that some day he will fix autocorrect. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you all have an auto-erect installed on Wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, mine doesn't run on Windows 10. I have to get an Atari engine if I want to get that feature. I hadn't noticed the pubic apology. Anti ax era is weird, but one can only imagine how the autocorrect on my iPhone comes up with the craziest shit when I text in Dutch. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Operating a device using multiple languages forces you to turn of all forms of autocorrect. It becomes a mess when your device is still set to another language. --15:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Imagine now how bad things get if your every day language is Franglais/Chiac. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You have mail. Jbh ^Talk 23:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Jehochman ^Talk 23:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your blanking of my message? Are you suggesting that the encyclopedia benefits from deference to emotional feelings over accuracy? EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The above user has now brought this to ANI, which I see that they have failed to inform you — so this serves as notice. El_C 03:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ellen, you need to find a better place to address these concerns because the way you’re going about it is going to get you into trouble that I don’t want to see happen to you. I recommend you gather your thoughts and write to Doc James who is our representative on the board. Jehochman ^Talk 07:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • So the request appears to be that User:EllenCT provide evidence that Fram dealt with paid editing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I am not entirely sure what she’s complaining about simultaneously in multiple venues. When I tried to corral it she ran to ANI instead of following my request to discuss it here. Hopefully she will provide more details before continuing to spread aspersions. Jehochman ^Talk 10:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Aha. This is the issue. Could the board look into this? Jehochman ^Talk 10:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for restoring the section. I'm happy to hear about your ideas for better places to express the concerns. In the future please drop me a note on my talk page, or just reply to the material you don't like instead of scrubbing my questions from talk pages. EllenCT (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, The Planet Nine article has been imported to v:WikiJournal_Preprints/Planet Nine. Whenever you're ready to proceed:

1. Fill in the "article info" template at the top (often easiest in VisualEditor)
2. When you're ready to submit it, just fill in the authorship declaration form

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I am stumped by these forms. It’s not clear which editors to list because there are so many. Also, some of the fields have no apparent meaning. I can’t see what information to put where. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever happens, I appreciate that you looked at the lead up, fair and detached. Ceoil

Sure. I’ll go see what they’re up to now. Please be careful. It feels like a group of editors have assembled a hit list of editors they want to remove. I’ve been trying to thwart any efforts to subvert consensus and transparency as they appear.c I would like to address Mandruss. Sorry man I personalised. We are perennially at odds on modern art images, and too often talk past each other. The conversation to date has been all (us) or nothing (you), lets try and find middle ground, maybe via a third party. >Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, and thanks. From the trenches it seems as if some people are using the atmosphere created by T&S to further local wars. My problem is that I swear a lot, so am an easy target. Gulp. Paul Ceoil

• Jehocman, I have no opinion on the merits of your closure (although the templates used were unorthodox), but could you sign it?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s signed at the bottom. The observer who wonders, “Who is the shmuck that closed this thread?” will have to scan it and find my complete remarks at the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Aha, I see now that I should always be sure to sign. It was actually just an oversight, because I was on a small screen and my eyes are having some issues. I don't want anybody to accuse me of trying to do a sneaky close. That's a fair criticism. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

re: It feels like a group of editors have assembled a hit list of editors they want to remove. - I doubt you're the only one to notice this. — Ched (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems like some of these civility workgroups have spawned mailing lists where the conversation eventually devolves to, "Okay, who should we ban to solve this problem." It starts out with the best of intentions, and devolves to back channel plotting to subvert consensus and transparency. We have to make people recognize that this dynamic is not okay. Jehochman ^Talk 00:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been a long time since EEML - something about history and repeating? I try to AGF, but "best of intentions" is beyond my grasp, and the devolves to back channel plotting and subvert[ion] may be difficult to stop, but is definitely frowned upon. As far as the dynamics - time will tell. — Ched (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There were even instances before EEML. I recall having some sort of tangential role in exposing that one. Jehochman ^Talk 01:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hope you like cats. I can put a puppy, if you’d prefer. Thank you for demonstrating a level head.

User:Kafka Liz ^{a girl is no one} 20:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh my. Thank you. I do like both cats and dogs. Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I sent Buffs a note. Springee has been notified in the last 12 months (Nov 2018). I didn't even bother trying to post the template on BMK's page because I'm sure they've been notified, it's their main area of interest. Who else needs a notice? Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a good start. Maybe let it sit and see who wants to go file an WP:AE report. Maybe they'll cool their jets, maybe they won't. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, I came here to ask you a different question but saw this. I do have opinions about who was doing what but I think I've been good about sticking to policy (other than raising the question about 6year's possible past which was never done on the article talk pages). Were there other instances when I was focusing on editors vs content? I don't think I've replied to any of the accusations of bad faith editing (white washing, block voting etc). Given the wreck the ANI has become and how many of the accusations involve content questions I've decided to stop replying. Please let me know if there is something you think I shouldn't have done. Springee (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have learned not to opine unless I have time to dig to the bottom, and I fear this rabbit hole may be quite deep. My advice is to be cool. There are lots of articles here that need improvement. If you find conflict, just walk away and choose something else. If you see weird editing, ask questions and patiently think about the responses. Just avoid the quick, adrenaline response because usually that one is the wrong choice. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't imply bad-faith from posting AP2 notices. I think Jehochman was quite right that it was a good concrete first-step in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct, thought I think you might have meant "impute" rather than "imply". Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I sent this over to emergency/susa. Quite creepy. Praxidicae (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever it was has now disappeared. If you could please email a brief synopsis of what was going on. Thank you so much for letting me know. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you very much for inviting us to contact you if needed! Before I fly off the handle (again?) is this this mention of WP:CIR tantamount to a very insulting accusation of incompetence? Or what is it? Maybe something I don't understand? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you will be much happier if you stop worrying about whether critical comments violate policy or not. A good response to criticism of your editing is to ask the critic what edit they would recommend, and then try very hard to understand, "Could this person be right, and could I be wrong?" Give those questions thorough consideration before you react. If at that point you still don't agree, ask for a third editor's opinion (We actually have a page for that, WP:3O) and if the third editor also says you were mistaken, you should accept that you were mistaken and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 12:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! If not one of us worries whether critical comments violate policy or not, wouldn't that give everyone a general carte blanche to sidestep WP:CIVIL and make nastiness spread even more? (Have you often been asked that? Sorry, if so.) I'll try to stop, but that as a general behavior seems a bit foreign to me, not just for my sake but for others who need help when harrassed. There is really no need to expect anyone with any self-respect to contribute to Wikimedia projects if we don't all help in trying to maintain a civil and bearable woking environment. Being freely called incompetent is not inspiring.

I often make mistakes, as we all do, and really appreciate constructive help which I do tend to recognize. I do not (not) consider myself always right. sir, and it makes me very sad, sincerely, to be generally deemed to have such a high opinion of myself. Nobody is perfect, and I certainly don't think I am.

Have often used 3O which is great and always concede when consensus is clear against my standpoints. Have learned a lot from that and others here. Sorry for being on the defensive again. It's no fun for you or for me. -SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been restrained, but I'm becoming more and more inclined to see you as importing a problem from Swedish Wikipedia to this one. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I opened my account here on July 13 2009 and there on July 31 2009, and have done more work here than there. English is my first language, I learned Swedish in my teens. The problems I've had there (and several more blocked users) stem from the fact that that there is no dispute resolution there, nothing that resembles 3O, no arbitration and no rules against outing. As far as I've seen, we haven't found it possible to have our own views on article content, reliable sourcing or civility judged in such constructive avenues as one can pursue - usually with great success - here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Remember advocates? I think what you have in mind are super-advocates, which would perhaps require them to be elected and vetted with the same level of scrutiny as arbitrators. I'm not sure how practical of a notion that is, not least considering how difficult it would be for consensus to be secured for such a project. But I always try to keep an open mind. I welcome your thoughts. Regards, El_C 16:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t think we need advocates. Probably the simple way to do this is have a party be able to designate an uninvolved functionary they like to review any secret evidence. The key features are that when a party can’t review material directly they can appoint a qualified person ‘’’of their choosing’’’. Retired arbitrators would be ideal. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, super-advocates! Using someone that had already underwent some vetting is an advantage, though. El_C 18:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion you engaged in at User talk:Ad Huikeshoven was one of the triggers for this comment, where I asked the extent to which administrators should work to make sure Fram was treated with kid gloves, until his third RFA.

When Fram withdrew his second RFA he made comments suggesting he would try to understand the opinions of those who opposed restoring his administrator status. I think it is important that Fram not only hint he will consider those opinions, but to actually take them seriously.

Fram complained that this comment constituted harrassment. So, was the comment harrassment, or a reasonable attempt to explore Fram's opinions on getting administrators, bureaucrats, and other contributors in positions of trust undergo further training in how to exercise that trust consistently, respectfully and responsibly?

I have an essay that I think is relevant here: Pick one.The ideal wikipedia contributor can ignore snide comments, and continue to respond civilly and collegially to the substantive component of their respondent's comments. We have other contributors who never seem to take offence when their respondents lapse from civility, but who are themselves routinely rude, or worse. At least they are consistent. I see myself as generally being in the third group - those who generally manage to remain civil, but who are troubled by insults and attacks. I think the fourth group is a problem - individuals who are thin-skinned, who complain how others are attacking them, when they themselves have a long history of problematic comments. Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the concept of civility has been proven unenforceable. We need to reframe the problem in terms that are easier to manage. Polite incivility has been a huge problem. If an editor has many friends and learns how to work the system they can get opponents sanctioned. Our pillar should say something like, “Don’t hope for another editor’s downfall. Instead, help your peers to be their best selves.” In that context ArbCom would tell somebody like Fram what they need to do. There would be clear criteria that could be evaluated at a subsequent RfA. “You need to be more patient with unskillful editors. You need to back away when an editor gets upset.” If Fram could demonstrate the ability to follow such advice for a year then everyone should welcome him back to his old position. That’s the way it should work for everyone. Jehochman ^Talk 23:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan, if you feel the need to continue your campaign against me, at least have the decency to get your facts straight. I did not state that that comment constituted harassment. In general, if you have a problem with someone, either discuss it with them, or take it to some general noticeboard. Making comments at random admin pages, or trying to have discussions at Signpost talk pages ("How far should administrators go to protect Fram, now that he is not an administrator?"), is not the right way to proceed. If you think my behaviour since the RfA is somehow problematic, please start an ANI discussion about it. Fram (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Fram, I think you have no worries here. His campaign isn’t going to have much impact. Jehochman ^Talk 11:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right. I forgot it was a personal talk page. We should probably clean it. Since you already answered to my post, removal of my post without removal of your answer would look odd. Feel free to remove my post along with your answer. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I recommend leaving it there, and then copy both posts over to the relevant article talk page. We can leave a forward pointer at Jimmy's talk page to join the conversation at its new location. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

For your comment. I appreciate you trying to reach a compromise and discuss things with other editors. The atmosphere on Wikipedia lately has become so toxic and unfriendly that it really isn't something enjoyable.I think I will take a wikibreak.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Or edit an unrelated topic where you can enjoy yourself. I tend to bounce around to different things. Jehochman ^Talk 00:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure which specific comment made you post on my talk, but I fully agree with what you said. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, what would be particularly helpful is if the Polish editors would stop using Polish-language sources so much, and when they do, supply the Polish and English in a footnote, per WP:NOENG. There is a vast Holocaust literature, and there can't be much of importance that hasn't been translated into English. The reliance on Polish-language sources means that our usual crowdsourcing model breaks down, because only a handful of people understand the source. I recall spending half a day trying to figure out what one source was saying, only to discover that it didn't even exist as described. The result is that most people don't want to become involved, which leaves a tiny number that become increasingly exasperated with each other, and that leads to the situation we have now. If you would lead from the front on this issue, that would help a lot. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: First, you have to realize that the statement "there can't be much of importance that hasn't been translated into English" is false. This summer I improved three WWII topics to GA,, Battle of Westerplatte, Battle of Hel and Bombing of Wielun. First, neither would be possible to write about in detail without Polish sources (maybe Westerplatte...), but more crucially, English sources tend to reflect decades all scholarship, a lot of which dates to communist propaganda "Germans were evil" times (amusingly enough, current Polish nationalists are anti-communists, but love the commie anti-German propaganda, often without realizing the times certain claims were invented). In all of those articles, as well as the DYK massacre of Ciepelow I wrote recently too, recent Polish-language scholarship helped debunk a number of myths, from "war started with the bombing of Wielun/Westerplatte" to inflated casualty numbers, and so on. English sources I checked often tended to repeat the decades old communist propaganda claims, generally because they are themselves old and because scholars who write them don't speak Polish or didn't care to investigate a topic they often mention in passing. In other words, the most up to date and comprehensive monographs on many Foo-historical events will be available only in Foo-language. There are some exceptions, of course, and notably, the entire Holocaust area has a lot of English research, much more so than the invasion of Poland topic which is of interest primarily to Polish scholars. That, however, doesn't mean that there is no research in Polish on the Holocaust. There is - a lot. And not just from "Polish nationalist" perspective; consider a single example - the book "Dalej jest noc", a recent publication that further explores Polish involvement in the Holocaust (and attracted predictable ire from Polish nationalist camp) is still not translated to English. It will be, in due course, but is is hardly an exception: look at Hunt for the Jews (released in Polish 2 years prior to English edition) or even the Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, the book that can be said to have started the modern era discourse on this topic - released in Polish a year before the English edition. This, I hope, shows that Polish language scholarship in this topic area is not biased - instead, it is cutting edge. Of course, there is a lot of Polish nationalist discourse that doesn't get translated, but likewise, there are some good research 'from the other side' works that don't see English translation, neither. It is unfortunate, but in the end, if one is interested in a particular topic of a non-English country, not knowing the local language will prevent one from becoming an expert. Last thing to consider: primary account of this are also not in English, but in Polish or Hebrew (sure, we don't cite WP:PRIMARY, this is just a note that any historian worth their salt who publishes in this topic area has to consult primary sources, or otherwise they are just an echo tube). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

May I summarize your two positions? When reading about the history of Poland, many of the best sources will be written in Polish. But this is the English Wikipedia and many of our editors don't understand Polish. This leads to two conclusions: our Polish speaking/reading editors are valuable assets to the project because they can utilize sources in Polish, but they need to be extra patient to explain the nature of their those sources because many other editors cannot directly understand them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur, and I think even ArbCom might have said something like this. In general, it is encouraged to not only provide page numbers etc. but to provide quotations and translations for anything that can be challenged, through IMHO given how good Google and like MT is for European languages, I think generally a Polish quotation on wiki is sufficient, Google Translate produces very reliable results these days and is just two clicks away with browser plugins (or Wiki scripts). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Piotrus, thank you for the detailed reply. I'm talking only about the Holocaust, not World War II, and I take your point about communist propaganda.

Wikipedia should reflect mainstream Holocaust historiography, which invariably ends up in English even if we have to wait a couple of years for translations. This is like the need for WP:MEDRS: we're not allowed to write about medical advances unless we have review articles to use as sources. As a result, we may lag behind, but we know we're reflecting the mainstream view. The use of Polish-language sources means our articles can't be checked in the normal way, and that introduces far worse problems than our coverage being a bit behind. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I would think this is mainly an issue if the Polish sources diverge from the mainstream high-quality sources that have been published or translated to English. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

But we don't know whether they do. We can't read them and often can't even work out what kind of source it is. Sorting each one out can take ages. People end up not bothering. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's one thing when it comes to medical topics, which is why we even have a medical disclaimer. But history, through occasionally raising emotions for some people, is hardly a field that needs such disclaimers; medicine is really exceptional. The argument you use could be taken to any other field (like Israeli-Palestinian history, I noticed ArbCom started the 4th round of tackling with this mess...) and anything else. We have WP:NOENG and there is little else to be said. English is preferred, but other languages are sometimes either the only, or the best source for a given topic, and sometimes, both. For example, I got Stanisław Koniecpolski to A-class - it is not possible without Polish sources, the only monograph on him is in Polish. No ifs or buts, and this is true for a bazillion other obscure topics like this. Wikipedia, English or not, is an international project, and we have to acknowledge that not everything that is reliable is in English. I would love for all reliable sources to be published in English, I hate how scientific progress and such is slowed down by language barriers, but to say that non-English sources should be discriminated against is grossly unfair. Lastly, I am unsure if we can say that English discourse in all historical topics is mainstream. Some topics don't have mainstream English coverage; ex. Polish WWII history - sure, there are some books, but Polish discourse of this is 10x if not bigger than English, and I'd argue that it is mainstream, not English. Polish-Jewish history is different, it is of international interest, but I'd still tentatively argue the discourse here is probably split 50/50 (and perhaps there is Hebrew language discourse I am unaware of, to add to the mix). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Translate can be partially helpful. But I would think that a scholar on the topic of the Holocaust in Poland would have to know Polish to make a serious study of the topic. One thing I've done at times is enlist the help of outside experts to review a Wikipedia article and point out any potential problems. For instance, I asked Michael E. Brown review Planet Nine to verify that we didn't screw up. There is a lot of subtle pseudoscience in astrophysics and physics that we must be careful to keep out of our articles. Sarah, if you are concerned about topics related to the Holocaust in Poland, you might write to an academic in the field and ask for their opinion about our article. You might be surprised by how willing many of them are to help educate the public. Jehochman ^Talk 03:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if Yehuda Bauer takes requests... El_C 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Try! It would probably be very exciting to get a reply. Maybe he can’t reply personally but there may be assistants or colleagues. Could you read and critique this article that thousands of people around the world are reading every month. Jehochman ^Talk 11:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I should. I do really admire his body of work. El_C 15:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Planet Nine article has been imported to v:WikiJournal Preprints/Planet Nine (per WP:JAN). Whenever you're ready to proceed:

1. Fill in the 'article info' template at the top (often easiest in VisualEditor)
2. Fill in the authorship declaration form to submit as ready for external peer review to be organised.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

To begin, who should I list as the authors? There are many, of course. What’s the cutoff, so to speak? Jehochman ^Talk 20:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

wrt: this, while I completely agree with your edit, I am reminded of a semi-similar incident a couple months back where <vanished user> had a quite prominent notice pasted front and center of her talk page stating that <then admin> should not post there for any reason. I understand the differences and all - it's just that the irony of Wikipedia never ceases to entertain me. — Ched (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely right. It's one rule for one, and one for another. In actual fact, Sca's message was quite neutral in tone and probably not really polemic by its definition. What Ched refers to was allowed to persist for months and months. We really need to work on what is classified as "harassment" around here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Vanished's talk page message was a violation of WP:BAIT, WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA. You've also just violated Godwin's Second Law (any Wikipedia discussion that continues long enough will eventually turn into an argument about WP:FRAMGATE. Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. If "Vanished" was still vanished, you'd have a point. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd not going to expend even one neuron cycle trying to figure out who she now is. Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

For very sensible comments and help. We have a lot of very bright people at Wiki but wish all had your good sense. -Darouet (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman. This is the second attempt. My first reply must show my ignorance because I cannot find the lengthy reply I just sent to user:Jehochman after receiving an email from him.First off I am not Larkin. I have never met him. I am not paid by anybody. I am retired and happen to be a Muso nutcase. Yes a self confessed Muso nut. I have all 4 editions of the Larkin All Time Top 1000 Albums books (along with many other Best Of Albums Books). Over here in the UK Larkin's book is the Bible, often quoted on BBC radio 6music and BBC 5 Live. It is much higher regarded than the Rolling Stone 500 Albums Book. Larkin's book was taken from polling Muso's whereas the Rolling Stone book and 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die are just opinions taken from writers and critics. The 3rd Edition of larkin's book states on the front cover 'Over 200,000 votes from the fans, the experts and the critics'. My reason for adding 140 references was not to spam (I have no intention of adding the other 860 albums because they are not of interest to me). The ones I added are my personal favourites and all have Wiki entries and many are neglected classics that are deserving of having an additional reference to Larkin's book. These albums mostly have reference to the Rolling Stone book or All Music Guide and there seems to be a strong USA Bias. My real intent is to get a UK balance as it seems unfair otherwise.Likewise albums such as Gene Clark's No Other and Moby Grape's 1st Album are cult classics and are in Larkin's book and I think it right and proper they be added to get the balance right. I think because Larkin's book represents the Muso fans it has more credibility than any of the other books and deserves at least being shoulder to shoulder with the others - and even though the 3rd Edition was in 2000 there are so many albums that have grown in stature -- like Nick Drake, Buffalo Springfield and Gram Parsons.Finally the book cover image used on the All Time Top 1000 Albums is woefully out of date. This is the 1st Guinness Edition published in 1994 -- my edits were all taken from the 3rd and most recent edition in 2000 published by Virgin Books (there was also a pocket edition as well).If there is an editor who sees this could they put the correct cover in the entry please?

I won't be doing any more edits - this whole experience has made me sick to my stomach. MrOllie's actions have really been upsetting and I have been so grateful to user:JG66 and user:Rlendog and user:Martinevans123 -- their advice, support and decency have been a blessing, and Rlendog's many reinserted edits of mine have been most welcome. I never received any reply from MrOllie and no longer expect to - perhaps he realises he was hasty and unfair. I won't go near putting any edits back in in case MrOllie appears again! As a very inexperienced Editor there is huge intimidation felt from all you vastly experienced Wiki editors. I know that what I did was genuine, and know that for sure after the comments from the three users I just mentioned. Furthermore there are dozens of references to Larkin's books and his Encyclopedia series on Wiki -- going back many years and nothing whatsoever to do with me!I won't be doing any more edits in the foreseeable future. MrOllies accusations have really knocked me back.Muso805 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't emailed you. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments regarding the unblock request at User talk:ITskandros. Because of what you said I held back until I had time to see more evidence. I have now seen cross-wiki evidence which makes me 100% sure that the account is run by a disruptive sockpuppeteer, probably the same one you identified. Naturally I have declined the unblock request. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 13:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reconfirming it. We fight a daily battle against confirmation bias. Jehochman ^Talk 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Checkuserbacklog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments regarding the clandestine and secretive block on me today. All most strange. But, like a terrier, I shall get to the bottom of it! On a happier note Eric Corbett’s multiple GAs and FAs have been restored [22] this evening to his user page. Something doubtless making the Arbs vomit on their cheap shoes. There is indeed a God. Giano (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. My belief is that established contributors should never be blocked without first talking with them and trying to resolve whatever the issue is. Of course there are exceptions, but since your account wasn't damaging any articles, well, it was all just navel gazing. Who cares if somebody scrambles an arbitration page a few times in protest of an arguably legitimate complaint? This project has two big problems: (1) our best editors are often taken for granted (or in less genteel terms, treated like shit), and (2) newcomers and underrepresented groups are made to feel unwelcome. I think it's very important to be kind to our new users and those who may be susceptible to online bullying. I think there are ways to accommodate both goals. A good first step would be for ArbCom members to admit that the outcome of their long attempts to modify Eric Corbett's behavior were unsuccessful, and that it was wrong to make an example of him in furtherance of a WMF agenda to make the site safe for everyone. There are real problem editors who WMF needs to stop, such as Lascava, to name one serial harasser who has been giving me a lot of trouble in recent months. Eric Corbett should not have been on the top 100 list of problematic users who were ruining the environment at Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, but now Eric was #1 on the list of the #1 user here, since 2014 when I stopped posting on that user's talk. I miss him. Today is the anniversary of the death of my favourite arb-to-be. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Re your note at RFA/case[23]

I made my statement[24] about an hour before your comment. Again, many thanks for your help and guidance, which was invaluable. I should have left a note in the thread on my talk, and I am sorry for that oversight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to add Diannaa to the party list, then you most certainly should add JBW. It's not fair to add one without adding the other given his questionable unblock. — Ched (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them. As I said, I had no opinion beyond the narrow issue of BHG talk page banning Diannaa, and then talking about her. Jehochman ^Talk 08:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not complaining of finding fault

but this seems a bit unusual (to me). Quite possible it's a common thing at Arbcom cases, but it does run right up to the "post in your own section" thing (yes, I'm aware it's just a note and it's hidden to all except BHG). I have no idea if she'll post there - but points for thinking outside the box I suppose. — Ched (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I have to give you credit - that went really well - good job. — Ched (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Optimism sometimes works. Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Planet Nine (estimated annual readership: 600,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Jehochman ^Talk 02:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	It's been an interesting year. Thanks for your comments, no matter how icy [;-)], as they help keep a focus. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork. This greeting warms my heart. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A year ago ...

planet nine
... you were recipient no. 2182 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I live near the current center of the pandemic. My responses might be slow until the disaster lifts because routine daily tasks are taking more time than usual. Stay safe! Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:2009 flu pandemic data has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I was returning to this site after a one decade break and was clearing out my archive of nasty s I created when I was a bit more... Flammable... and came across this: User:Hipocrite/dbm. Couldn't delete it. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Noticeboard proliferation noticeboard, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Noticeboard proliferation noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Noticeboard proliferation noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

...this edit. The two D/S notices are for different subject areas: one's COVID-19, the other's post-1932 American politics. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. We should have a template that can intelligently provide two or more warnings as a list inside the boilerplate, rather than repeating the boilerplate which seems a little oppressive. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

About this ANI thread you just closed [25]. This was my (intended) post.

@Jehochman and Double sharp: Better not step into this trap Double sharp! A c/p would restart the cycle. While, here Ds is complaining about the flow & closure of an existing thread. One diff (link) is needed and provided. The complaining report asked for is there [26]. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If they want to complain, let them. They'll post some diffs and if people think somebody did something wrong then that person says, "OK, sorry, I understand and I'll change my ways." That ends it, as long as they do change their ways. Don't raise the stakes. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, I understand you're concerned as you contributed to the previous thread. But I'd like to do things properly within the protocol. I've already gotten some good information from Jehochman about how to file a noticeboard complaint, I've asked him a little further question, and I've asked someone else already involved (EdChem) on his talk page on how he sees the situation and how/if I should file another complain. I admit I'm frustrated, and I'd still like to complain again later if that seems to be a reasonable course of action, but I'd like to do it properly. Double sharp (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to add (already wrote [27]). -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Strange talking here. No objection to dinospeak in WP:TALK. To contrary, conciseness encouraged! [Bishzilla sticks the little Jehochman in her pocket and wanders off.] bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC).

Mmmmfff! mmmfff. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Excuse lint. [Bishzilla brushes off the little user, plonks him down in Victorian salon.] Sit on sofa! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC).

Ahhh. Could I have some hojicha tea and cookies please? Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bishzilla is tired of the everlasting logging in. Help yourself, that's what the fridge is there for. And for minimizing political correctness, have a cigar with that! Bishonen | tålk 21:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC).

Bentley's looks more like a shoggoth than a table. Janet's I can understand based on my mumblety-mumble years ago high school chemistry. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to add to my A/R/C comments with anything away from the central issue, but FYI: the alternative picture you posted takes the position that La and Ac are below Sc and Y and has Lu and Lr in the f-block, and so takes one of three positions I mentioned and could be battled over in the same way and for the same reasons. I do agree that our readers deserve much better, though. I note that another editor pointed out that our periodic table is an FA. Sadly, I wouldn't even support it being a GA at present, though I hope it can be edited back to FA standard rather than having a battle over delisting. EdChem (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I see this as a knot of problems having no clear solution other than to start picking it apart one thread at a time. The picture I posted was just an example to get people thinking that there's more than one way to present the periodic table. It doesn't matter which view it supports. "There are alternative views" is the take away.

It's probably a good idea to copy the style used in periodic table everywhere else. If it is disputed which should be the "standard" or "default" view, I think the link I posted to LANL may be helpful. Among the top contenders, it does not so much matter which one we choose; just choose one and stick with it until there's good reason to switch. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Please take my advice with a big grain of salt. I am ok at physics (having instigated two FAs, Planet Nine and Gamma ray burst) but am just a rookie at chemistry. It might help to contact one or more university chemistry professors and ask them to review periodic table. When I wrote Planet Nine I emailed Mike Brown (astronomer) and he checked the article for us. My experience is that professors are often willing to help if asked. Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your WP:G12 tagging of File:Map of the Russell Islands.jpg, I want to address your statement on the file talk page "This is a crystal clear copyright violation. I am quite sure you can't use an excerpt of somebody else's map in this way. The non-free criteria is not met." WP:G12 is not the appropriate speedy tagging for a file. WP:F9 is the speedy deletion criteria that applies to file space. WP:F9 specifically states "his applies to obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use." This file was claimed under fair use, so speedy deletion does not apply. If you feel that it does not meet one of the non-free content criteria, WP:F7 is the appropriate speedy deletion criteria and there are specific tags to use depending on which criteria you feel it fails. Having said that, the file (in my opinion), faiuls WP:NFCC#1 and I have tagged it as such. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I sometimes regret our inscrutable bureaucracy. I stated the reason I thought it was bogus to have this file on Wikipedia. Thank you for listening to my concerns and setting it up with the correct deletion criteria. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey- can I ask a quick question? All the details in this map File:Map of the Russell Islands.jpg, including illustration of undersea features that could be hit by ships, elevations on land, etc would be helpful to the readers. If this map were redrawn with all of those details, it would be the same as this image, right? Hence, redrawing the 20th century professional perception of this area in a new map would just be a recreation in duplicate of this image. Please help me! Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Helpful to the readers is not relevant when talking about copyright violations. This map is somebody else's property. We can't use it without their permission unless we have a fair use rational, which we don't. How to redraw it without committing copyright violation (or plagiarism) is a good question to ask somebody who does that regularly. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Per recommendation, I am moving this discussion to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Question_about_Criteria_One_of_WP:NFCCP. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello; genuinely as a matter of guidance, because I care very deeply about the racial bias on Wikipedia stuff and meant everything I said about believing that failure to curb pedestrian everyday casual racism is a major cause of it, and hence want to know where the boundaries are on what I can do about it: in your closing comment you said that I needed to be cut slack—for my statements at AE, presumably—and you said to me, please do not consider this a license to call others "racist" or "disgusting" or cast aspersions without clear evidence. The other user's claims, for example that my vision is to bring Wikipedia under a totalitarian rule of fear, seemed much more extreme, unrealistic, and unsupported, but received no admonishment from you or Haukurth; I kind of feel like the implied reprimand was directed at me because what I was saying actually made sense, but broader societal conventions in most places are to avoid confronting this kind of behavior. So, was this a finding that with all I wrote, and all the diffs I brought in and the quotes I presented, it still was not enough to be considered clear evidence of racism by Wikipedia standards? Thank you, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No. There is no finding. I just gave general advice not to run around calling people "racists" or other epithets or cast other aspersions without evidence. It was also important for me to recognize the concerns of our colleague Haurkur. My advice is good advice for all parties and observers. The idea is to make sure everyone understand that this is a project to write an encyclopedia, not to judge our peers. To the extent you can do the work without judging others, that is best. Jehochman ^Talk 01:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In response to the characterization of to run around calling people "racists", I feel compelled to point out that even at AE I did not call my interlocutor himself a racist, but called their behavior racist and described it as articulating a racist attitude towards what our encyclopedia should say; and I did not use the word “racist” before I was, as you said, “hauled” to AE by that user, a forum specifically devoted to the discussion of user conduct. But I acknowledge that, as in your closing AE comment, you have technically phrased the above characterization as general advice you just happen to be mentioning in the context of my behavior.

Nevertheless, thank you for responding, and thank you for doing the difficult work of a Wikipedia admin. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'd like an explanation for this comment you made to me on Drmies's talk page.

What a mighty high horse you have, Coastside. Jehochman Talk 13:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, I'd you to explain:

1) Why did you respond to a note I had left for Drmies about an incident between him and another editor?

2) Why didn't you allow him to reply to the issue I had raised before making this remark?

3) Why did you feel it was appropriate to be derisive toward me?

Thank you.Coastside (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Please review meatball:DefendEachOther. Bless your heart, Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

[28]. Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC).

You shouldn't be making changes to other user's statements. Please refrain from doing that. If you have a change you want to be made in another user's statement, please contact that user first and then the clerks if you feel it still needs addressing. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you a clerk? If so, could you please ask the user below to occupy one section only, please. The page becomes confusing when users start making lots of subsections. Yes, it still needs addressing. No, I did not change another user's statement. I was trying to prevent their wikicode from disrupting the layout of the page. The edit I may was an attempt to fix the layout without changing the content or appearance of the user's comments. The very annoying thing is that I was looking at DePiep's comment and was instead tricked into reading Robert McClenon's section. That's not good. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am a clerk (see WP:AC/C for a list of all clerks).

Although you did not alter the meaning of the statement, but you still did make a edit to another user's section. Only clerks and arbitrators can edit outside their section in sectioned discussions at ArbCom (including case requests, cases and other arbitration places excluding WP:AE as uninvolved administrators traditionally deal with that page).

The section name is "DePiep" and is not the same name as DePiep's section "Statement by DePiep". Also, as it's a subsection of Robert's statement, the structure in the TOC says that section as a part of Robert's statement. Although the name of the section might cause confusion, where the section is and its content should show that it's not DePiep's section. I don't think the number of subsections used by Robert is inappropriate or excessive, so I'm not going to change subsections to bold text. If you disagree with this, email the clerks (and arbitrators as they have access) at clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org.

Also to note my notice here was not prompted by Robert and was because I saw an user editing outside their section. From what I understand Robert has no particular opinion on which is used, but is annoyed that his section was edited by another user. It might be worth directly asking him to change it as a step before emailing the clerks email. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think he got the message already. Since he didn't change it, I asked you, a clerk, to please consider fixing it. Your explanation about how the two DePiep sections have superficially different headings is unconvincing, but if you don't think it's a problem, I shall not blow any more hot air into this teapot tempest. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

First, as clerk User:Dreamy Jazz says, only the arbitrators and the clerks may edit other editors' statements. Second, if you think that what I have entered is confusing, then if the arbitrators or clerks state that they don't want subsections, I will be happy to comply with their instructions. Third, you missed the Final Comment, so please don't go messing with my statement incompletely. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It is generally a good idea in life not to complain about small things if you want to get along with your neighbors. I was trying to help and if I missed one section -- oops. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If I do have politics, perhaps they are no more clearly self-evident than by the hundreds of morals I painstakingly transcribed from Filmation into the very fibrous walls of List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes, so many long years ago. Be kind to animals, respect your elders, don't let evil strangers fool you but don't be afraid to trust good strangers, that sort of agenda. But I swear that I don't have a sword, a gun or ill intent for any current candidate. When I say there are good people on all sides, that means I think that's always been true, it doesn't mean Trump isn't a liar or that white supremacy isn't evil. Those are recent and regrettable associations, not my fault, though. Anyway, whatever you were trying to remind me of earlier, it's water under the bridge, as far as I can tell. No hard feelings? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I used talk messages because I think you’re a good editor at heart. The political articles are toxic. If you find yourself posting to a thread more than once or twice it’s often better to walk away. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Metaphorically, you're right, my heart is a well of wisdom, love and patience. But physically, it's a pit of bacteria, plaque and cells with two left feet. I probably should have listened to Orko about drugs in my teens and twenties, but how cool would I have looked in front of my peers? A young man has to do what the kid in him understands will help him grow, y'know? But now I'm older, uglier and lonelier, so I'll heed your advice, some guy on the Internet. American politics after 1932 really aren't the healthiest way to go insane while maintaining a semblance of past personal integrity. Good place to get lost in a crowd, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a much smarter guy with better advice: http://www.umich.edu/~bhlumrec/c/commence/1988-Brodsky.pdf Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Only skimmed through, but yeah, seems like this guy and Ram Man would've agreed on a lot with the '90s on the horizon. Nowadays, I dunno, is buddy even still alive? Most of my role models from that summer didn't make it much further. But c'est la vie. I'll read more later, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dead at 55. Sad! But he outlasted Hercules, Andre the Giant, The Ultimate Warrior, Junkyard Dog, The British Bulldog, Ravishing Rick Rude, Big Boss Man, The First Lady of Wrestling and Canada's Strongest Man, so I guess the Hip were right about how the smarter you get, the further you're going to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you with this. You asked KyleJoan to leave me alone and to drop the stick. Yet shortly afterward, they're back on my talk page, badgering me. The false 3RR filing, the false SPI filing, and now this continued harassment. I don't go to KyleJoan; I try to avoid any interaction with KyleJoan. And that's not working. I sincerely need your help.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Genuine question: Am I banned from interacting with Tenebrae? I did not write on their talk page to discuss the content dispute; I simply wanted to know how I violated RfC procedure over another, which they never answered. If it was a mistake to ask a simple question to help improve my conduct, then I apologize. That aside, how true is it that they are trying to avoid any interaction with me when they directly responded to my comment? KyleJoan^talk 02:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Stop looking for reasons to fight. Stop trying to needle other editors. You are being obnoxious and need to stop. Just stop. Walk away. Do something else. If they follow you then it becomes their problem instead of your problem. You just posted a diff to complain about somebody who was behaving civilly and properly. You think this helps your case? Jehochman ^Talk 06:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note, the goal of the RFC was to add language to MOS to affirm that "commit suicide" was acceptable language as there currently isn't any current policy to support that (the reason we need to add it), I think the close message is slightly misleading. Obviously, the close was in favor towards this, but I just want to make sure it reads right. --Masem (t) 14:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll clarify. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Vanessa-fox.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

What? The edit summary of my upload clearly says Photo by Danny Sullivan (technologist), from Flickr. {{cc-by-2.0}}. I just copied and pasted the text. What else would you like to know? Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Moosehead.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Collapse bottom has been nominated for merging with Template:Hidden archive bottom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Smallbones and I would like to request undeletion of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report – deleted July 2019, with edit summary reading in part Out of caution this should be hidden from view until ArbCom rules. If you do not intend to do so, could you let me know under what policy it remains deleted so that I can respond in the appropriate forum? As far as I can see there's no community discussion endorsing its removal, neither the August, 2018 WP:AN discussion which was closed as "nothing to do here", nor the declined July 2019 Signpost-specific Arbcom case request, nor the Fram Arbcom case which was closed in September 2019. Nothing in the Fram case workshop nor its proposed decision refers to The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It remains deleted for the original reason stated in the log. G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. Until ArbCom says it should be undeleted, or until you get a consensus at WP:DRV, it should remain deleted. I don't see any compelling reason to undelete it now. If you explain to me the reason, I will consider it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate that. I read that and I was like "wait...what?" Looked at my block log and, sure enough, 2008 and 2010. Good God, I feel old. 16 years here and I turn 40 next month. Ugh. This old fart needs a nap. :)

On a related note, I think this just tied itself into a bow as best as it will ever get. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:09 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

Moved to express my appreciation by your edit at Muon — 08:28, 8 April 2021‎ Jehochman talk contribs‎...‎ Remove tag spam. Like any article, this one can be improved. No apparent danger of inaccuracy that requires a special warning to the reader. and having adopted the same technique for dealing with often years-old stale or unnecessary tags made by editors who could have chosen to pursue making an article better with a little effort instead of placing a hollow tag — I shall adapt your term in shorthand henceforth, as Jeh tag spam elimination. Thanks for your edits to improve our articles for our readers. 83d40m (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The tag spam is not just an eyesore. It also discredits our articles, making them less credible to readers and less cite-able. A tag may be necessary if an article appears to be bullshit and an editor feels unable to sort it out. It is possible the the muon article was improved between the time when the tag was placed and when I removed it. We should not be too hard on the unnamed editor who added the tag. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

Fits nicely here ;) - I used the phrase "discredit articles" for tags, and wonder if I got it from you. - I read again what I wrote 2 years ago, and still true. - We had a beautiful Main page on 10 April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again for upholding this very nice tradition. I wonder where Phadriel is these days. Jehochman ^Talk 08:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Here is an instance of the kind of thing I was complaining about. I could find dozens of other examples. Moonraker (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I will look. If you want to provide me with two more of the best examples I will check them too. Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the edit that took me to complain on his talk page. If you scroll down to 18 January here you will see other examples. Moonraker (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The whole history of one of those pages shows it is one he has got away with. Moonraker (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

His methods are non-standard but for at least the first diff you provided, his pressure resulted in a great improvement to the article. He says “redirect until a better version is made,” which is fair according to WP:BLP. If you just treat him a quirky editor and focus on article improvement, could that work? Jehochman ^Talk 03:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick request: take a look in on the Michael Milken page. Seems like several editors are bent on bringing a NPOV to the lead paragraph. Several years ago you weighed in, quite rightly, in noting that labeling Milken a "convicted felon" was inappropriate. I believe you wrote: Let the facts speak for themselves. The article makes it quite clear what he was convicted of. There is no need to label him. Labels in general should be discouraged in favor of neutral facts.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan. I had thought that it was time to leave this issue be, but it keeps eating at me that policy may not be being complied with. Would you be willing to reconsider your RfC close, or if you are not able to make changes based on the existing discussion, do you think it would make sense to raise more specific questions with the community (at WP:AN for what would technically be an RfC close challenge, or WP:NPOV/N for individual articles)? I have two concerns:

1. I am still concerned that using "committed suicide" in wikivoice to neutrally communicate that someone died by suicide is a violation of NPOV because RS say that the term is stigmatizing and moralistic. I feel like most of the community's !votes were made before most of the NPOV evidence had been provided. So the first question is, hypothetically, if all dictionaries, linguists, etc., say that "committed suicide" is a negative term, does that mean it would be a violation of NPOV for us to use it and the RfC could not override that?
2. According to your RfC, we may use the language of the sources, but when sources which had used "committed suicide" are no longer consistent with their own current style guides, then shouldn't we not use the langugage of the original sources?

Thanks for your help. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Use the language of the most current sources for the topic, knowing that this is evolving. If you have an old NYT source and their current style guide uses a different formulation now, you can probably make a rational argument to adjust the wording to current style guide. The other thing you can do is open an RfC at our Style Guide and point to a bunch of other style guides and see if you can get a consensus to make a global change here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my #2 concern. Do you have thoughts on my hypothetical question at the end of #1? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a systemic change that will be best implemented with patience. I recommend not calling it an WP:NPOV violation just yet. I recommend saying that Wikipedia should update its style to reflect current use in reliable sources. That is your best argument to make. Jehochman ^Talk 22:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Very broad-minded if I may say so. ——Serial 12:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It's cool you've volunteered to do help out, but please don't overwhelm the place with your own feelings. It's fragile enough as it stands without yet more precious input. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We need to get more editors involved. A few quirky people can really screw up some of the decisions. Jehochman ^Talk 04:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2300 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Hi :@Jehochman: I recently help Wikipedia by adding budget of movie along with reference but one user remove the editing along with warning of suspension. What I do know thanks

Me too. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you feel the need to insult somebody, go to their talk page and type your best, but don't save. You benefit from speaking your mind, and the rest of us benefit from not having to read it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your work on starting and defending the conversation of using terminology such as "blocklist" or "safelist" on Wikipedia. Thank You! Adam MLIS (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 02:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:B-gone has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the page without further ado. Nobody else had touched or used it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You are one of four editors who greatly encouraged me in my early months here and provided heart-warming support both before and during my RfA, which I looked at today for the first time in several years. I don't know if you realize how important that was and is to me. I am very glad, both on my own account and for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, that you are still around. – Athaenara ✉ 20:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind note. Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I must admit I have problems understanding this edit [29].

Yes, you are right that I made a mistake regarding time, I see that the comment was made prior to the warning. I don't think that invalidates any of the behavioral problems I raised. I of course have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but to claim that you "stopped reading" and proceeded to a close and warning is surprising. Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you are skating on thin ice because you posted the same erroneous diff multiple times, creating the appearance that there were multiple instances bad behavior after the warning, when your evidence proved no such thing. When you post at ANI be careful to post proper diffs. You should take my advice. Misrepresenting sources is a big deal. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my advice. I think the other editor has made you angry and this can cloud perceptions. A good cure is to walk away from the dispute and have a cup of tea. If the editor is truly a jerk, WP:ROPE will take care of it soon enough. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, that is helpful advice. As there were two separate points in the same diff, I did post the diff twice. That is not a misrepresentation of sources (quite the opposite) but if it's not good practice I will of course abstain from it. There were two separate instances of "bad behavior" (one instance of personal attacks and one of edit warring). While I did get the timing wrong on the first of these, I'm still not sure why you feel the entire post was "bogus" - even if you don't agree with it. And yes, I will walk away from the topic and The Pollster, which is why I ask these questions of you here. Jeppiz (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman,

I'm writing about my recent revert of your bold edit to WP:BLPCRIME, and I want to take a minute and explain to you why, and the problems you almost caused by making that edit. In general, if you !vote in a discussion (like your RFD vote, This case is one of the valid exceptions to the rule.) and your !vote is based on a particular WP:PAG (like BLPCRIME), you should never edit that PAG to add language supporting your !vote (like your edit to BLPCRIME, adding An exception is that Wikipedia reports the identity of an alleged perpetrator when their name has been reported by multiple reliable sources, making them a public figure.). Doing this is deceptive and manipulative, and runs the risk of causing a serious misunderstanding, as almost happened here.

I went to the RFD Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#Darrell Brooks and looked at the argument for deleting based on BLPCRIME. Then I read BLPCRIME, and I saw that it had a sentence that was directly on point, and directly contradicted the delete argument, and furthermore, that it was the sentence directly following the sentence quoted by the proposer. I was typing a "keep" !vote that went, "I can't believe Joseph2302 would quote part of BLPCRIME and omit the next sentence that directly contradicts..." and then I thought to myself that I should check the history of BLPCRIME to see whether, in the off chance, some fool might have just added that sentence to BLPCRIME in order to influence the RFD. So I checked, and lo and behold, somebody did, and it was you. Luckily I checked and saved myself from falsely accusing Joseph of bad faith, but your edit to BLPCRIME made it look like things were quite different than they really were. I have reverted your edit. Please don't edit policy pages in this manner in the future. Levivich 19:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would you accuse him of bad faith? I suggest dismounting your high horse before you fall and hurt yourself. If something looks weird, ask the other editor to explain. Don’t jump to conclusions, especially wrong ones. Jehochman ^Talk 05:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point, which is about you and some of your recent bold editing, which has become increasingly concerning, such as: your recent premature close at ANI and unwarranted warning to the OP (I re-opened that one); boldly moving the page 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash in the middle of an RM to a title no one had even proposed (another admin reverted that); and editing BLPCRIME to add language supporting your RFD vote (without leaving a note at RFD saying you did that; I reverted that, too, discussed above). These were disruptive unilateral actions, and I'm asking you to be more careful about making unilateral actions like this in the future. Levivich 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, if you want to discuss things, let's take them one at a time. Please do not try to Gish gallop by piling on complaints one after another without proper analysis of each one. I stand behind each of the actions you mentioned and will explain each one if you want to go through it. You might learn something in the process. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

These little rhetorical power play games are a waste of our time. I have now expressed my concerns to you; if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them but I'm not interested in further discussion. If you think my concerns are unfounded, feel free to ignore them. Levivich 16:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You started this discussion. I heard what you said and will give it due consideration. You heard what I said, and likely you'll do the same. Thank you and have a happy holiday (if any). Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You've once again moved the page through full move protection in the middle of an RM (two days after it opened), and you didn't even close the RM, even after this was brought to your attention. Will you self-revert your move and agree not to make page moves through full protection in the middle of RMs in the future? Levivich 15:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was entirely one sided and there was a motion to snow close. Take it to the article talk page if you have an objection so that everyone else can see your comments. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, this is about you using admin tools improperly. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that it was a SNOW close, you didn't SNOW close it, you just made the move. The RM has actually been closed as "moot" by another admin because of your actions. You're also INVOLVED by virtue of your !vote at the related RFD. Is there anything less than an arbcom case that will convince you to stop making moves through full protection during open RMs? Because an arbcom case is so much work, I'd really rather handle this some other way. But if you don't self-revert, that's where we're going. Levivich 15:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I did close the discussion by posting "Done". Maybe I could have been more verbose. Placing a {{discussion top}} around a discussion is a mere formality that any editor can do after a discussion is closed. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Just had a thought: how about a thread at AN instead? That's presuming you'll agree to abide by the outcome of the thread. Levivich 16:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course. I welcome a review and will abide by the result. You may want to wait for a better example though. The RFD discussion was SNOW closed indicating that it wasn't a bona fide content dispute. As for the page moves, the first one was well-supported by consensus and has been implemented. The procedural overturn was subsequently overturned on substance. The second move was based upon unanimous consent. The objection to removing "Christmas" doesn't seem too serious and I recommend Black Kite's comment [30] over there. Finally, there seems to be a fruitful discussion at WT:BLP that we should allow to proceed. Jehochman ^Talk 17:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

When you say You may want to wait for a better example, that suggests a better example is coming, which makes me not want to wait. But OK, we'll wait for a better example, not because anything you said makes sense, but because I've already written two noticeboard reports this week and I'm just lazy to spend my free time writing a third. Levivich 17:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I very much hope not to give you any examples. Let's both think about what each other have said. There's no reason two sensible editors should not come to agreement. Jehochman ^Talk 18:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you ever get that feeling when you're trying to fall asleep, but you can't stop thinking about embarrassing things you did in your teenage years? Yeah, I got that feeling when you reverted this edit. That was quite stupid of me for saying, thanks for doing so. You might notice that I started leaving responses there only yesterday, so I hope this slipup doesn't give bad first impressions.

I'm having quite a good time helping settle disputes, so I might stick around if that's not a bother. Any good advice I should know so I don't make mistakes like this in the future? Panini!^🥪 14:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible to not make mistakes. A little humility is a good thing. You've done nothing wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 15:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

While I'm here, should I ignore this? Or have I genuinely been causing more harm than good by being at ANI? Panini!^🥪 16:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You should focus on content writing. This is the way to properly understand Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 17:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I find your close here incredibly ironic given your comments here, here and here, given the misrepresentation of P&G and lack of any actual evidence in opposing the move. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is rather polemic and lacks diffs. What misrepresentation of P&G? Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with the comments I linked (last three) made in respect to the MR for "Waukesha parade attack". A particular degree of WP:Precision becomes a determining factor only when disambigation is actually required. There was no such need at New York City subway (just as I agree there is no such need for "Christmas" and have stated same). The actual discussion of the move included solid policy-based arguments on both sides. Are they solid? WP:COMMONNAME outcomes are determined by an assessment of evidence of usage. What is the body of usage to support "S"? I agree that assertions without actual evidence are of no substance. Any statement made citing policy or guideline must be read in the fullest context - without which, it is quite possible to misrepresent a statement taken in isolation. Therefore, its in not sufficient to say that WP:NCCAPS states that proper nouns are to be capitalised since it more fully addresses how this is to be determined - on the basis of evidence of usage. To ignore this is to misrepresent the guideline. Arguments without evidence and/or based on a misrepresentation of P&G have no substance - ie they have no more weight than "I just don't like it" and "I just like it". Hence, I see a irony, though you likely disagree. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I think there could be a new discussion (but be patient, build support first) with a different framing, such as: The proper name is New York City Transit, not New York City Subway. The word subway is used in a descriptive sense only. In common use there are lots of mistakes, resulting in inconsistency from source to source. Therefore, Wikipedia's job is to objectively evaluate the facts (is it a proper name?) and then follow the rules of grammar. That's the argument to be made. My closure is not based on what's right or wrong; it's based on what the participants said. This is not a slam dunk case. There are sound arguments on both sides and if you want to institute your version, you will need good logic and force of numbers. It will help to frame the discussion as well as possible to convince as many editors as you can. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge the fullness of your response but this particular statement gives me cause for concern: Therefore, Wikipedia's job is to objectively evaluate the facts (is it a proper name?) and then follow the rules of grammar. [emphasis added] I trust you would agree that closers are expected to be fully conversant with the P&G relevant to a matter being closed. In this particular case, there is WP:AT. On the matter of capitalisation, it specifically invokes WP:NCCAPS, which, in turn, specifically invokes MOS:CAPS. WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:NPOV also come into play. WP does not rely on rules of grammar to determine capitalisation but on usage in sources. Why? This is because any "rules" are both poorly defined and generally poorly understood and often misrepresented - though not necessarily knowingly. For that reason, MOS:CAPS does not even attempt to define what the "rules" are. If there is any agreement in the discussion at New York City Subway, it is that English defies codification - both generally and in respect to proper nouns/names. Yes, everybody can agree on "John Smith" or "New York" but at the fringes (such as the subject) things unravel. Heated depates arise (to the point of incivility) between those that would impose their views and perceptions of these "rules" and the guidance that represents the broad community consensus on how such matters should be resolved. It can be much like trying to convince a creationist - no reason, logic or evidence will convince them otherwise. One only has to look at the discussion to see this. It is one matter to state that there are "valid arguments on both sides". It is quite another to explain "why" they are both valid. It is analogous to offering an opinion in a discussion without explaining the basis for same. It has no weight. This is where many closers fail. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not talking about closing. I’m talking about the future of the article and what you might do to improve it. So, let’s end here because I think we’ve covered it fully. Jehochman ^Talk 12:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

When you ask Issue: If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia?, I'd agree this is not best practice. But what if you adjust it as follows: Issue: If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, and this article is part of a lenghty, on- and off-wiki harassment campaign, repeating claims of a site-banned editor (where said claims led to the said site-ban), can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia?? Bonus points for considering WP:OWH (particularly the part that "Off-wiki harassment, including through the use of external links, will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases"). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I was quoting directly from the coin thread. And I said so. If what you suggest might be true, then you definitely should request ArbCom to accept the case, investigate, and remove the corruption, stem and roots. Originally I had named IceWhiz as a party but Beeblebrox decided to delete that name. It is not a foregone conclusion that you were wrong and somebody else is right. It could be the case that you were right and other people are wrong. Or maybe each party is partially wrong. We won’t know unless we have a case. Jehochman ^Talk 13:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought we had the case. And then the follow up, in the form of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Icewhiz_banned, where the Committee stated, pretty clearly, that "The Arbitration Committee has received convincing evidence that Icewhiz has engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors. Consequently, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia." What's ambiguous about this?

Also, regarding your new revelations, can you tell us if you contacted Icewhiz or he contacted you? I find it very concerning, in either case, that you repeat on Wikipedia, the words and opinions of an editor whom ArbCom, per above, found to have "engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors". Note not ifs, but, qualifications. ArbCom found the evidence of Icewhiz harassment convincing to state it as a FACT. Icewhiz had his talk page access revoked, and he was even banned from Wikipediocracy (and that's not easy). By quoting his denials on Wikipedia, you are empowering him and enabling his WP:HARASSMENT. Please stop and refactor your post. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I posted right under the arbitrators’ noses. They are not shy and will surely speak up or make adjustments should it be appropriate to do so. Rest assured that I have no intent to raise this issue anywhere else on Wikipedia, nor do I edit in the topic area of concern. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I will add my two cents to your talk page discussion, this time related to numbers of AE requests(sadly can't include in the statement because I'm well over the limit).

First, VM has a point about the rate of of AE/ArbCom reports; but here's the thing: this metric doesn't matter, either. What matters is that in how many reports are VM, Piotrus, GCB, Levivich and other users being listed as filing parties or accused parties; and after that, we should divide it by the time the users have been active. Simply making a statement is not a problem in itself, because people may submit opinions. Even this is not the most accurate metric, because, just like in this case, we might have cases (just like this one) where there's a group of editors implied in tendentious editing but the immediate parties are the ones listed. This one requires too much analysis though. As a side note, while theoretically filing an AE/ANI request is not problematic, either, it does indicate deep dissatisfaction with the user and probably a time sink that the users have been in.

My calculations show that, for VM example, we have

VM: AE: 27 A/R*: 6 (?), AN+ANI+3RR: ca. 100 Total: 130+

GCB: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:

Piotrus: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:

Levivich: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:

François Robere: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:

Nihil novi: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:

Buidhe: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:

Slatersteven: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:

Me: AE: - A/R: 1 AN+ANI+3RR: 2 Total: 3

Ermenrich: AE: - A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total: