User talk:Jehochman

Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page.

Re:Spanpo

I added User Spanpo because he has the same or similar userpage to some of the other socks and he was mentioned here as a confirmed sock but was not blocked so I assumed that Spebi accidentally missed him when blocking. Thanks Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

Aye. It looks like that one was accidentally skipped. I have blocked it now. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize

JH, I apologize to you personally for reneging on my "works for me". I promise that I am done now. I appreciate your fairness, Jonathan. I know I pushed it a bit far this time. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad. Know thyself. Each of us has hot button issues that we are best to avoid. Just recuse yourself from all Smee-related activities and you will be fine. Cheers, Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your closing note at WP:ANI

Your closing note at WP:ANI is inaccurate. I have been "ignoring" JustaHulk (talk · contribs)/Justanother (talk · contribs). I just pointed that out in the WP:ANI thread. In fact, I was heeding your warning from the last thread he started at WP:AN. It was he that brought this up, again, not me. So how can you feel you have to caution both of us, and not just him, when I have been following your advice??? Cirt (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not my purpose to single people out. If you are not going to do what somebody warns you not to do, then you have nothing to worry about. You do get my point that JustWhoever is not allowed to bother you, and likewise, you will not choose to interact with them. Peace, Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. However if only one person obviously breaks your warning to them, and the other one does not, I hope that in the future you will not warn caution both parties again, but rather just call out obviously disruptive activity on the part of whichever singular user is not paying attention to your warning. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't show up at the thread, I would have only needed to warn the party who was present. Next time, I recommend you remain silent if you do not wish to draw attention. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your words are wise. It is difficult to remain silent in the presence of (still) unfounded WP:NPA accusations of "propagandist" and the like. It's hard because when I see an attempt being made to sully my name on very public boards, it is hard to keep silent. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been through that myself. It's the hardest thing to walk away, but it really is the best. Jehochman ^Talk 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in certain cases I have been silent, and then later people misinterpret things or get the wrong idea because I never explained myself, commented, or presented my case/side of the story. But I do tend to agree with you that in the aggregate, your suggestion is the best approach with regards to this situation and others. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

I've just added headings to hopefully separate some of the issues on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) page - would you like to comment again? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman

Hi Jehochman. I am quite surprised about several of your very aggressive statements regarding the Franco-Mongol alliance and myself. Please be aware that I have always been willing to compromise (and a cursory glance at the article will show you all the instances of allies/vassals, and disclaimers by Elonka that have long been included in the article), and I trust I have been the most supple and responsive party at Mediation (you can ask Tariqabjotu). I am very serene about my own editing, as everything I contribute is taken from proper published sources. I know the subject is quite arcane, and most people are surprised by it, but I think I have been very thourough and quite objective in covering it. I would appreciate if you could have a slightly more balanced opinion on the subject. Best regards. PHG (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I am surprised to have waited three days with no reply from you to a thread you started at my user talk about this RFAR. You wrote "The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. " I have now provided one example to demonstrate an issue worth investigating. Please see my statement, at the bottom. Of course I was unable to do so because the one example you provided was a link to a deleted page. Why go out of your way to invite me to look at something I can't see, then leave me hanging when I reply that I can't see it? Durova^Charge! 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If the case is accepted, evidence will be presented and deleted articles will be undeleted if necessary. PHG, I did contact El C and asked him to look into this because he knows something about the history of Jerusalem. He says that he found a few references about Mongols in Jerusalem, so it may be worth your while to follow up with him. Durova, if you look at these articles, and then pull up a few of the books listed as references by using Google Scholar, I think you will find a startling disconnect between what the sources say and what the articles say. Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, and reads like a reply to some other question I didn't ask. Please be more considerate of my time. It's not very polite to draw another Wikipedian's attention to evidence you know they can't read, then direct the person elsewhere when they ask why. Durova^Charge! 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked an uninvolved arbitration clerk to provide you with a copy of the relevant article. Sorry for the delay. I am not going to undelete this article myself because I am potentially an involved party. If my request is approved, you should receive a copy very soon. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think

This is a user essay that I would like to move to main space as an essay once I finished with it. I am almost done, just syntax and structure. Igor Berger (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good WP:SEI you can show it to Harvard..:) Igor Berger (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation

You think that is the way to go? I am not so sure, but maybe.--Filll (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try. If it doesn't work, we can undo it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is not so much incivility. There is a group, represented by User:Orangemarlin and User: Peter morrell for example, are not always civil, but who cares? They are productive and are willing and able to follow the rules and they have demonstrated this, and as far as I am concerned, that is the main thing.

However, there is a second group, consisting of a good half dozen or more "regulars" on the homeopathy pages, and a few socks, anons, meats, etc that appear and disappear, that are (1) unproductive (2) reject ideas to try to make things productive or cooperative or bury the page in text spew repeating the same nonsense over and over so we are flooded with garbage and cannot function and (3) are unable and / or unwilling to follow the rules and procedures of Wikipedia.

I do not know if the administrative structions can handle or are even aware of the second group, since they are civil. The administrative procedures go after the first group, because they are easy to spot, particularly when one says something like "You are a flaming $#^%*!!". The system "works" and targets people from group 1, but over and over and over, ignores people from group 2.

It is just too hard and too much effort to sanction people from group two, compared to people from group one. So that is what the system does; it follows the easy path.

And we get what we get. Now by being even more aggressive, will the attention be focused on group one or group two? Cracking down on group one harder will do NOTHING that is needed. It is group two that is our root problem. --Filll (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on how uninvolved administrators interpret "disruptive edits". That should mean more than incivility--it should apply to misrepresenting sources, obstructing efforts to reach consensus, and so on. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding warning tag that was removed on homeopathy talk page: Is this the discussion you are talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)\

Yes and if it goes into effect, a lot of the people on the talk page and on the article will not do what they have been doing for the last few weeks and months without penalty.--Filll (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Anthon01 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant articles

No doubt you're aware of many of the articles that should be included in this probation, but I thought I'd offer a little help...Here's a short list of articles that definitely need to be included as homeopathy-based arguments have spilled over:

• Deadly nightshade
• Thuja occidentalis‎
• Thuja‎
• Rue‎
• Potassium dichromate
• Arsenicum album‎

And maybe these, too:

• List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
• List of homeopathic preparations

Perhaps more soon...(?) — Scientizzle 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when WP:AN gets archived, you'll probably want to update the link within Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation so it points to the archived community discussion. (Otherwise, someone will complain.) (Someone will probably complain anyway, but at least we'll have a pointer to the discussion.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That is why I have been linking to the subpage from everywhere else. That way the link to the discussion only needs to be updated in just one place. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are homeopathy probation tags being placed on non-homeopathy pages and on pages with no history of edit wars. What gives? Who decides what pages are related to homeopathy? Anthon01 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant talk here. The template talk should be the place to contest a specific article being on probation as a central place. Lawrence § t/e 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Any subject connected to homeopathy, broadly construed can be tagged. If there are tagging problems, go to WP:AN so more people can see the discussion. The template talk page should be reserved specifically for questions about the template itself. If an editor with a history of editing homeopathy articles removes a tag, that's probably a bad sign. If a previously uninvolved editor, non-[[WP:SPA|SPA}}, removes a tag, that's probably less worrisome. Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Article probation notification

You are well-aware that this article is covered under the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Please do not edit war, or you may be placed under an editing restriction, such as revert limitation or topic ban. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have notified User:Thatcher. He, or somebody else, will be along shortly to rectify this situation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we get pass this

Is there any way to get past this? High quality RS are simply being rejected. [1] How is disruptive editing defined? Anthon01 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate

Why was my ack that I was notified via posting a duplicate? Honestly confused. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If your name is on the page, you can hardly claim unawareness! Let us keep the list as short as possible by not listing people more than once. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me! PouponOnToast (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:)

Nice touch. Rudget. 19:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

I was recently blocked for 8 minutes for posting a message on AN/I regarding SA. The admin who did that reverted the block after a closer look. I know you have your job cut out for you. Do I have the right to bring this to the AN/I page without fear of getting blocked again? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, can do that. However, I think it would be better to give ScienceApologist a little space and see if they calm down by themselves. They are receiving advice from friendly editors, and hopefully that will serve. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the AN/I page. Anthon01 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am relatively new here (3 months) and am still learning the ropes. I hope you can help me with these questions. I explained the edit history on the AN/I page that lead me to post the incident involving SA.[3] If I would have seen you notice prior to posting I would not have posted it. The response I got from East have left me unsure what the rules are. Had that comment been posted on the AN page as a question, instead of a question/request, would it have been perceived and handled differently? Was that a more appropriate place and way to post it? I made a comment here. [4] If I make a similar comment on the AN will that be considered shopping in some way. I'm not sure how much attention is being paid to the probation template page. Thanks for your input. Anthon01 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeo

Look, I'm generally on your side, but the "(→Throwing in the towel - remove incivil remark)" was not uncivil. It was a statement of fact: if the barnstar were merited, there'd be no dispute: as it is, that stupid thing has cost us one good editor. Nice.•Jim62sch• 23:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please repost your comment, but leave out the "BS". You can make the same point, even stronger, with less strident language. We have to set a good example for the others. Jehochman ^Talk 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can buy that ... but how can I be less strident?  :) I'll manage. Thanks. •Jim62sch• 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Standshown/Stagalj

I am having 3rd similar SPA account and possible solution of this problem. This last SPA account is User:Smerdyakoff .I am 99 % sure that User:Smerdyakoff is somebody puppet. His first wiki edit has been Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view [5] ?? There are 2 connection between this accounts. All 3 are created in late october 2007 or latter and all 3 has edited article Neo-Nazism (parts about Croatia and Serbia). This is important because that article has been very popular for user:Velebit and his puppets (last puppet edits has been from user:GiorgioOrsini and user:NovaNova). After puppets has been blocked we are having IP edits from suspected user:Velebit puppets IP 4.249.x.xxx. It is possible to see that this IP edits are connected because user:4.249.9.200 is deleting suspected puppet of Velebit tag from talk page of user:4.249.0.135 [6] . We are having this IP edits in article Neo-Nazism between 28 July and 26 October 2007. With creation of accounts User:Smerdyakoff and user:Standshown in late October and early November all edits from user:4.249.x.xxx have stoped. --Rjecina (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have forget 1 thing. User:Standshown has writen yesterday:"The difference between regime and state is fully elaborated by me and by Smerdyakoff" and then he has given link for place on talk page where only user:Standshown has made edits [7] ??? --Rjecina (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many editors. Sometimes they agree with each other. That by itself does not indicate sock puppetry. If you wish to pursue this, the correct process is to open a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. However, you will need stronger evidence than this, and there should be recent evidence of wrongdoing. We cannot act on old edits. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Smerdyakoff and Stagalj have supported one another in RFC so this possible new wrongdoing, but I am more interested if there is way to check new accounts to see if this "new" editor is new puppet of user which has been blocked indefinitely (in this case user:Velebit aka user:Purger aka... ). This blocked user has edited articles:Neo-nazism, Ante Starčević, Ustaše, Neo-Nazism in Croatia, Independent State of Croatia, Nedić Serbia. I am sure that you will not be suprised if I tell you that this trinity Standshown/Stagalj/Smerdyakoff is editing only that articles (or articles connected with that). Because last edits of now blocked puppet (User:Guivon) of user:Purger has been in September 2007 can you please tell if wikipedia is still having his data--Rjecina (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Right venue?

Where is the right venue for this comment? ScienceApologist (talk)

Strongly object

to one particular admin listed at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation as uninvolved

I strongly object to Jossi (talk · contribs) adding himself as an "uninvolved admin" when he has made controversial edits on Thuja, Strychnine tree and Dana Ullman all within the last month. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; he's very much involved. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: 114 (22.8%) of his last 500 edits are on "homeopathy" articles - at least as I define them, no one else seems willing to define them. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with him directly, I think. That is the first step. The list serves a good purpose if it helps identify and resolve these issues before they turn into larger disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the reason to remove myself from the list. See my comment here: Wikipedia:RFARB#Statement_by_recently-involved_User:Jossi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The "strong objection" from SA, is simply because I have been one administrator that has attempted to curtail the obnoxious edit-warring by him and his opponents. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Jossi has NEVER attempted to curtain obnoxious edit-warring on the part of "my opponents", going so far as to revert my removal of their controversial edits. He clearly has positioned himself firmly on one side of this dispute despite his protestations otherwise. Every last one of his edits in the last months to homeopathy-related pages have been to accommodate POV-pushers of homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe editors who are opposed to mentions of homeopathy in various articles believe that you are insufficiently neutral. I believe they hold this belief because you did not see any reason to take action when this edit was pointed out to you, that you saw no reason to take action when this edit summary was pointed out to you. In fact, you have not, to my knowledge, criticized or reacted negatively to a single action taken by a general proponent of mentions of homeopathy. If I am incorrect, please provide a diff. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I think you should recuse yourself from enforcing the probation; a number of experienced users clearly feel that you're involved, and any enforcement measure that you take will probably cause more drama than it solves. Please note that I'm an administrator, but will not enforce the probation because I've made some comments at Talk:Homeopathy and Talk:Deadly nightshade. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, Jossi, but I support you stepping back as well. Other more neutral people can take care of this, and consensus appears to support removing you from the list anyway. Lawrence § t/e 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my comment above, and will remain on that list. I do not take sides, as I have no dog in this dispute. See for example this warning. See also my last 500 edits here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to stay on it, but since everything on Wikipedia is subject to community decisions, I think everyone could just take you off. Lawrence § t/e 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I will be happy to stand the scrutinity of the community on my actions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a thousand administrators. Why try to stay on a mediation board when one side refuses to accept your neutrality? Relata refero (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So how can we deal with this, Jehochman? I see this as a real problem. If involved administrators refuse to recuse themselves, what are we to do? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not "involved" in this dispute. Period. Stop the forum shopping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And as an editor that is as involved as you are, you should not touch the probation page at all. You are exhibiting the behavior that this probation is all about! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Why? I see no indication that anyone should be banned from editing that Wikipedia page. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation? SPA!

Dana4 (talk · contribs) PouponOnToast (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Less reaction causes less trolling. I suggest you smile at them. If smiles are undeserved, this will be proven soon enough. Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, I did! Look at my welcome message. So templated and nice, and I even gave them a way to explain how they were already able to do single-[ linking and ' bolding! PouponOnToast (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfect! It may be somebody else with a similar name. Jehochman ^Talk 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

Please be aware that you have been mentioned in a complaint about ScienceApologist on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ScienceApologist. Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi is reverting my notation that the above complainant has been notified about article probation from the probation page. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding people to the probation page that have never edited any of the articles in probation. You are being disruptive. Consider this as a last warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I contest your statement that adding editors complaining about Homeopathy as a proxy for other editors to the list of editors notified of probation is disruptive. I will continue to do so, and the only way you will be able to stop me is with an indefinite block, or admin-only protection on the notification page. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. Thanks for sharing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, PouponOnToast. I suggest you retract the ultimatum. That sort of thing is patently unhelpful. Article probation is designed precisely to help remove those who are inflexible. Please do not continue to demonstrate the need to apply this remedy to yourself. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to state that I will stop notifing editors who are complaining about Homeopathy via proxy? I will not do so, and I will not stop adding to the list in the absence of block or protection. I will, however, pledge to L1rr (lifetime 1rr) with repsect to individual notifications - I will not knowingly revert any intentional removal of my notifications or listing of said users, with the caveat that the user-talk-page-archive of the notification will serve as good and sufficient notification for purposes of sanction. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks:

I take the statement that I need to "develop better collaboration skills," as a personal attack. Please comment on the edits, not the editor. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. You need to develop better collaboration skills. See WP:SPADE. People who troll can be called trolls. People who edit war can be called edit warriors. People who push POV can be called POV pushers. You're behaving like a troublemaker, and very soon you will be treated like one if things don't change. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please lesson to J, he is an excelent mentor and knows his stuff very well. Just tone it down a bit and go about your business. Igor Berger (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting essay I find the first version of it to be enlightening, and your quote is a lot like the kind of thing I might write. Of course, we're not allowed to call pov-pushers pov-pushers - I've taught SA that by now, I hope. I'm behaving like a user who is being constantly told by others that they are treated unfairly by the system, who alledged that they needed to work the system, and that by being unflappingly civil they could get whatever they wanted. All else aside, I have been unfailingly civil - which was the consistant concern about the editors who are being hustled out the door. It appears, however, that I was wrong about the wor the system thing.

To my colaboration skills? Mine are excellent. You appear to have confused my "willingness to be run over by a bus" skills with my colaboration skills. Review the "stickiness" of my edits to the random disputed pages that you see me working on - they stick, whilst the others edit war around me. It's OK that you've confused "collaboration" with "getting run over by others" - because that's how "collaboration" has worked in the past for pro-science editors. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) As a note to Igorberger - I'm not looking for a "mentor." If I wanted to be an admin I'd just go edit DYK and revert some vandalism, then go unblock users that I agree with like some other admins do. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TEA. Take a break. When you come back, be less combative, and everything will be fine. Please, please, please take this advice. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your advise under advisement. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Any mayhem that is done can be reverted later. If you give your opponents free reign, they may swiftly prove the need for themselves to be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you believe your above statement, I will not have to link this anywhere but here. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped reverting on Jan 30. That's a positive. If that ugly editing pattern resumes, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PouponOnToast: What is your point? Anthon01 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• PoT, do you think with my record I will ever be an admin..:) But I have 99% admins respect my calls, so which is better? Igor Berger (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The advice about being less combative is sound. I notice that it was hinted that Fill was synthesising an interpretation,[8] but the article being summarised indicates that no significant differences were found, presumably between homeopathic medication and placebo. Filll's statement seems to be a good faith summary of that point, and if you agree, it would be helpful if you could let him know that no accusation of wrongdoing was intended. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I was beaten to it: I was going to mention the goose and gander proverb/aphorism/saw/saying. No need to now. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My next essay WP:FLAME

Lots of notability..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please keep an eye

I am throwing the towel on Homeopathy. See my comment. I came to the Homepathy article with no POV to push, and with good intentions to help with the content disputes. If all it takes to be called "involved" is that, so be it. All I got back was pure vitriol, from editors of both side of the dispute. The probation page has becoming a joke, with disruptive editors adding and removing names at will. I had more than enough. You better keep an eye. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to let editors get away with this type of behavior. Back on my watchlist. Bullying and baiting will not prevail in my watch. I will continue monitoring these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Y'know what, Jossi, I'm beginning to have some doubts along the same lines as those raised by numerous editors above: I'm not so sure you have the appropriate skills to police a page such as homeopathy. You see, my good man, I was defending you -- I'd never seen you leave a page because it became too contentious, and the fact that you did so shows just how f'd up the page is. In other words, my post was dripping with sarcasm, and with my own displeasure for the page. I should have thought that the "THWACK" would have given the sarcasm away. I guess not. In any case, how you leapt then to "bullying and baiting" is beyond me.

BTW: I don't know if anyone was challenging your motives, but the fact that you've been editing the articles for a couple of weeks (i.e., before the article probation) does seem to make you involved.

Alas, WP is certainly becoming a surreal little world. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm, does not work, my friend. And that comment was totally unnecessary, it was inflammatory and helped no one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever re sarcasam.

BTW, re the comments of yours that were removed from the page as disruptive: do you think those comments helped any one? You violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, insulted a slew of editors, and damaged your own credibility (not to mention the image of admins), but I suppose that's OK, right? Surreal. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate anything. You, on the other hand, did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Are these not your words, "This is exactly the kind of stuff that disruptive editors with the help of clueless others manage to do: Any admin that comes to assist in a content dispute, becomes the target of one or the other side, gets added to probation warnings and other stupidities" and "Have fun with your endless and mindless dispute"? Perhaps your account was hacked? Well, probably not, given your defense of them.

Perhaps it's a language issue: my sarcasm was obvious to any native speaker of English, and your comments were clearly seen by native English speakers as disruptive at best [9], [10]. Maybe in Spanish your words are not uncivil, although I doubt that as I read Spanish fluently (La Casa de los Espiritus being one of my favorites and an excellent example of how sarcasm works very well in Spanish). Whatever the case, there is clearly a failure to communicate here. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[Fix indent, note redlink presumably The House of the Spirits rather than The House of the Spirits (film).. dave souza, talk 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)]

Indeed! •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and Wikiproject neutrality

From what I gather, it looks like that Wikiproject doesn't like to get involved when there are conflicts raging (which kind of makes me wonder when they do get involved, but whatever). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

A question was asked and a consensus is building, allow wikipedia to work the way it was meant to work a group effort, not one Administrator deciding for everyone, wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Chessy999 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot change policy with a small group at WP:RSN. Wikipedia and Wiktionary are not considered to be reliable sources. You're being disruptive. I recommend you take a break, relax and think about this. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am so relaxed I might fall asleep -:) Chessy999 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When you wake up, happy editing! Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Supercomplixcated code

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

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

Demonstration of relative sizing: smaller text

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

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

Enforcement

Why is this remark considered an appropriate and constructive contribution?[11] I must say, I'm concerned about lack of even-handedness in enforcement of the article probation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Patience. All the abusers will be banned soon enough. By moving slowly we can ensure that the bans stick. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, though I wish you would show the same "patience" toward science-oriented editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? [12] Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong regarding my expectations for the outcome of this matter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks for User:CompScientist

Looks like CompScientist is evading the one month block that you issued with a sock account: User:Wikipeadian. This user has been making identical edits to Nissan GT-R and Vietnam War. If there is another way I should address this please let me know. Thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CompScientist. Patience, they, their sock puppets, and their IP address will be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

rollback rights

What are rollback rights? KaylaLanders (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Rollback. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note on AN

Please check this. Its a cautionary note regarding your actions. [13] Anthon01 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive Tag

Why did you add an archive tag to an ongoing discussion at RSN? There are comments from today. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

what im doing wrong

please justify. --Area69 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am notifying you that article probation is in effect. Please read the terms carefully and be sure to follow them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reason? I mean I request that you advice me - am i doing something which is not according to the rules according to "article probation" ? Thanks. --Area69 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please since you follow the discussion notify me if any of my actions have been disruptive- If you want. Thanks again.Best.--Area69 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate ban

Hi Jehochman -- I don't want to get all dramatic, and I like your efforts to keep things cool at the volcano that Talk:Homeopathy has become, but I think it was a very bad call for you to topic-ban User:Art Carlson.[14] His conduct -- calmly expressing a defensible opinion, and making a single edit -- is not grounds for banning. Basically, it sounds like you banned him because you disagree with his assessment of the quality of sources. Reasonable people can disagree on that, especially when they're physics PhD's, like Art is.

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

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

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

Agreed.Please reconsider. From what I read here.COuld you also tell me your opinion whether or not according to wiki policy controversial articles should be tagged with labels like pseudoscience? I have posted a question in the talk page. Thank again.Best.--Area69 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[15]

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

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

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

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

Jonathan, I agree with Jim, you need to reconider your ban, and in my opinion should reverse it. Over-reactions, which is a word that I think best sums up your ban of Art, are not helpful. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks. If I'm wrong you can always wiki-slap me and say "see, I was right" -- or something like that.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Blackamoor

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

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

Thank you for the sound advice. Do you consider this inappropriate? [16] I would like to point you to this diff.[[17]] I will willingly comply with whatever recommendations you make. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medical systems infobox

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

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

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

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

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

your comment

I noticed an editor deleted matertial from the article.[18] I went to the talk page and gave a chance to others to provide the appropriate references.[19] Please explain your comment. Quack Guru 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Rot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking toward the future

It might be a good idea if, using the lessons learned on Homeopathy, we could develop a better guideline on exactly what is and isn't kosher on pages under probation. We all seem to be floundering a bit, unsure of what's cool and what isn't. Just a thought. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is quite easy, really:

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

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

I agree with you, but let's codify it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

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

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

editing restrictions

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

References section on the Talk:Homeopathy page

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