User talk:Jehochman

Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Coachees: See User talk:Jehochman/Coaching. Cursing: For incivility on this page, you must add at least one (correct) inline reference to gamma ray burst or SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. Bickering is not entertained on this page. Trolls will be eaten by User:Bishzilla.

Seek your advice about constant harassment

Hello, Jehochman. I come here to seek your advice from your long experience dealing with user's behaviors, especially incivility and personal attacks. I've had very hard time for some user's constant trolling and personal attacks in my wiki experience (worst than any other sockpuppeter's harassment campaigns ever). He is named Tenmei (talk · contribs) and we first began conflicting for his nom of AFDs on a Japan-Korea related article in the middle of merger discussion with me. Moreover, he turned the page to a personal attack site on me, so I filed ANI on his conducts. He was not blocked due to his toooooooo lengthy and unintelligible notes even though he also was reported for the similar behaviors to users including admins. After that he has been hounding around me, and seems like he does not get over the report. We also have been disputing over a primary topic over Yonsei and a validity of Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) being here. He has left lengthy and trollish comments against me on relevant talk pages or several noticeboards or went forum shopping to editors as "demonizing me" with inappropriate languages over and over. He has falsely accused me of making hoaxes (he stroke his own comments on that but still keeps making such) I have tried to ignore his constant provocations and personal attacks, or gave him warning or said nice in hope for him to behave better, but things get worse. I found this comment very upsetting although that is a rather mild level compared to his usual attacks along with his trolling[1][2][3][4]. What do you think I can resolve this constant attacks from the user? Thanks.--Caspian blue

• a few examples

This user's limited grasp of English usage renders this conclusory argument suspect.. There disambiguation page was nothing but a contrived gambit,

The oblique purpose of this thread is to distract attention from yet another variant wiki-hoax contrived by Caspian blue at Yonsei.

Sock whatever

The computer you traced belongs to the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, located in an office at Östgötagatan in Stockholm, Sweden, is used independently by various associates at various times of day and night. You must tell me whether or not you now have our exact address or not and according to law (Swedish, British and U.S.) you must provide very strong motivation (evidence of criminal activity on my part) for such an invasion of our privacy if so. We are frankly quite afraid of you and your cohorts that initiated your probe out of spite (see below). I have now found out that the computer in question had been used at times unknown to me by an acquaintance Fiandonca (now scared to do any more editing) and me (just about there too). It has never been used for what you are accusing me of. In other words two different people have not used it simultaneously to create false discussion or anything else false. Please read section "Contentiousness" on my user talk! I ask you kindly never to post anything there that goes against that policy again. Please respect my wishes in this regard! Anything like that will be removed instantly. If you must, just post "See my talk page" there and sign it. I have read up on Wikipedia policy re: Sock whatever (am I at liberty to find the terminology overly banal?) and have found that "Legitimate use of alternative account" applies in this case and that no rules have been broken. It has been very interesting for a certain person, whose name will not be revealed to you, to learn how new users are treated at English Wikipedia and to compare this to other projects such as Commons and Swedish Wikipedia. I will not discuss the matter more than telling you that much. Feel free to block me if you feel you have proof that that is warranted and that you can get away with doing something so destructive to me without getting into trouble yourself with the Wikimedia Foundation. Please, I repeat, do not post anything contentious on my user page or its discussion. There is ample concrete evidence on file at Southerly Clubs that I have been the victim of Wikihounding and I can only recommend that you do not join the hounds. Your input with today's date has started that hounding all over again, after a problem-free period of constructive work, and all of what you are complaining about today is too old now to hold up as anyting other than continued hounding. EmilEikS (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I am the one who created the term "wikihounding" so I know what it means. Checkuser was run by Rlevse (talk · contribs). If you have concerns, you can ask him for further information. I personally know nothing more than what was posted. Your combative style is not at all helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely for creating the term! What you call combative is felt very strongly to be neccessarily defensive on this end. EmilEikS (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you may be feeling stress. That's normal. If you remain calm and look to see whether criticisms of your behavior might have any merit, and then suggest ways you can do better going forward, I think you'll get good results. If the account I have blocked is controlled by an independent person and they want to edit again, I am willing to unblock them if you two agree not to involve yourselves in the same conflicts. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have admitted in several places that I have made mistakes and that Fiandonca was tough on people in some of her wording (no reason to unblock her, she felt way too much "stress" and refused to find the scary treatment "normal" - she's gone for good, from English Wikipedia in any case). I have thanked everyone sincerely who has been constructive and helpful, even people who were not very nice at first after having been worked on (evidence on file) by a certain editor. I have apologized to everyone several times for example on my user talk. I have assured everyone in my little presentation on my user page that I am trying to do my best. There I have also given my real name and city of residence, confident at first that this could never lead to my feeling as uncomfortable as I felt before your last message. (Anyone can get my home address and date of birth from the Swedish tax authority since they have my name which isn't too common here - these are people who post many things like "stinking pile of poo" courtesy of pages provided for them to do so by the Wikimedia Foundation! And today it looks like the Wikimedia Foundation can hack into the computer I use which doesn't even belong to me?) I have consulted some real Wikipedia pros in my acquaintance, about the basics of contributing and later about details, by email, telephone and in a couple of coffee klatsches at our local hangout. One of them, who said he would "never touch English Wikipedia again with a ten foot pole or for all the money in the world" warned me very emphatically not to contribute anything there and now says he told me so. What I have done wrong as far as you and I are concerned is that I categorically refuse to communicate with or about certain editors (two to be precise). And I do not want any contentiousness of any kind (mine or others') on my user talk (can I remove it all?). Those two factors, where I absolutely draw the line, are what has all of us involved like this day after day after day. Such stress is not normal, if you will pardon my opinion and that of the organization that has authorized my work this month and last for Wikipedia (as per a minuted board meeting where I requested to use the file material I have quoted all over). Best regards and thanx. EmilEikS (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been at Wikipedia for a month, and somebody started a requests for comment against you. That's unusual. Do you think you are being persecuted, and if so, can you explain very concisely the nature of the dispute. In one sentence, what do you want, and in a second sentence, what does the other side want? Jehochman ^Talk 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you see that it is unusual. The nature of the dispute is vindictive because I objected early on with increasing vehemence to repeated condescension and ridicule. I want the incessant hounding to stop. The other side wants me punished and will not stop persecuting me and contacting more and more editors until that is accomplished. EmilEikS (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you walk away from the conflict for a bit, and then look at it again. Perhaps you could post a comment to the RFC page that you are taking a short break but will respond in due time. Jehochman ^Talk 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already tried to "walk away from the conflict" for several days, directly involved in no disputes whatsoever, but much has gone on behind my back in the meantime to keep it hot and heavy. With all due respect, sir, I will not post anything anywhere which goes against the two factors I have stated above (now changed to bold font). And that is final. There is absolutely nothing in the world that could induce or entice me to go against those two factors and drag me back into the nightmare of trying completely in vain to communicate with or about these people, only to be pounced on by more and more of their biased cohorts. ("Wikipedia equals wolf pack", one friend says.) If such pages are designed and enforced to compel people to communicate with or about people they do not want to have any dealings about or with, then so be it. I refuse even to look at such pages. Punish me in whatever way you deem appropriate! EmilEikS (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just for the record, the above user was notified about the AN/I and removed it here and then was notified the request for comment on user conduct, removed it and posted his talk page policy, which evidently supercedes Wikipedia policy, here. If you will look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EmilEikS#Evidence of disputed behavior, both User:EmilEikS and User:Fiandonca were posting in tandem during the incidents outlined in #1, #2, and #3. If they are two different people and it is the same computer in the same office, it still falls under sock policy as meat puppetry. This individual has no intention of participating in the RfC dispute, as evidenced by his talk page statement of "I will not under any circumstances correspond with or comment about anyone I have found or will find condescending. Nor will I read anything that has do to with any such person." I see no reason to suspend any sockpuppet outcome pending RfC because of that. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How does the interaction with this user compare to the ideals of Don't bite the newbies? Good, bad or ugly? Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you what. I had occasion before all of this escalated to interact briefly with the user on the Mae West page and there was no problem, the conversation was fine. Then I removed the flag icon from the page and was assaulted full-on by both the socks, tag team. And yet, I tried my absolute best to remain calm, civil and try to explain MOS:FLAG, and after being repeatedly assaulted, still did. Over the course of the incidents, multiple editors supported this. At one point, another adminstrator, User:Garion96, who had been trying to deal with this user said to him Basically get over it. You really see attacks where there are none. Although by now I can understand if Wilkhartlivie is, to say it mildly, quite upset with your behaviour. Don't go Tilting at windmills. I would say it was par for the course, from everyone concerned, in trying to deal with contentiousness. And problems haven't stopped. I noted problems, though admittedly not as bad as his behavior before, at Talk:Hippie#Jay Stevens quote, Talk:Hippie#Fashion and astrology, Talk:Hippie#Drug use, and User talk:EmilEikS#Hippie. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I only want to add that the quoted "steaming pile of poo" comment which the user continues to insist is so upsetting has been explained wherever he cross-posted only my side of a conversation with User:Momoricks. She referred to the film Texas Chainsaw Massacre "I've never seen the film, but it sounds like a steaming pile of poo." I replied Well, steaming pile of poo is one description. Another might be a seminal horror/slasher film that opened the door to a plethora of even worse slasher films. It was fairly scary, but unfortunately, deteriorated into contrived storylines in sequels. I'd liken it in impact to Psycho, Night of the Living Dead and perhaps the original Halloween. That explanation exists all over the place, the user has read it but chooses to assert it is about him. How do you propose one react when someone takes one's words out of context and self-ascribes it to be a threat, as it has been? I was tired of it the first day and continue to be. Everyone thinks the behavior is wrong, but no one so far has taken steps about it. It's completely frustrating. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		You happened on a situation that was more than met the eye, gathered necessary information and quickly intervened to resolve it. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I still did not have the full picture and this caused inconvenience for others, which I regret. Jehochman ^Talk 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was a tough mediation that escaped the bounds of the case talk page. Once that happened, several people were suddenly drawn in to some complicated dynamics. Things can happen fast in this virtual reality. I don't take much personally. I learned something about reacting too fast and sense that you may have learned a thing or two as well. That is all good. Sunray (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, one barnstar hanging by its lonesome self doesn't quite look right. It needs a mate...

		The Special Barnstar
		In appreciation of your wonderful contributions to improving the content and character of Wikipedia, and for in celebration of your off-Wiki work in calling positive attention to the project's merits and benefits. Yes, you are special. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ecoleetage. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'personal conflict'?

If an editor objects to an administrative action, is that really a 'personal conflict'? I don't really think so. I may not agree that I deserve a speeding ticket, and I may wish that the ticketing officer not have the authority to issue me further tickets, and I might even voice my objections strenuously and loudly, but that doesn't really mean that I am engaged in a 'personal conflict' with the officer. Dlabtot (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you've been vandalizing the officer's house, that officer is probably not going to be very objective towards you and should leave enforcement to somebody else when there is an opportunity to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'd been vandalizing the officer's house, I'd say (a) I'm the one with the personal problem, not the officer, his is a professional problem that came about as a result of doing his job, (b) my actions in vandalizing the officers house would not preclude the officer from doing his job, and (c) I'd probably be in jail long ago. In real life, it's not the victim of vandalism, but the vandals who are punished for their actions. If only WP worked that way, we'd have a lot more energy left over to work on articles. Dlabtot (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, just trying to provide some food for thought, not trying to start an argument. Dlabtot (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I am tired and cannot wrap my mind around things fully at the moment. I am going to take a break for a while. Have a good evening (if you are anywhere close to my timezone). Jehochman ^Talk 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace. Shalom. etc. Dlabtot (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Could use your input in a suspected sock case

Hey, I would value your expertise in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup, would much appreciate it if you could take a look. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am up to my ass in alligators at the moment, but I will try to look later. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay no worries, thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My Vote

I have added more to my vote on your election hope it clears it up, I did not intend to deceive by ommision and I wish you the best in your election regards. BigDunc^Talk 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that no matter how you vote, my talk page is available to you whenever you need help. I may be blunt at times, but I try my best to be fair. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Jonathan. I think you are one of the few administrators to speak their minds and have solid principles. However, you have also made several unpredictable about-turns, as Durova described, which have been impossible to fathom. On a few occasions you seem to have gone out of your way to encourage other wikipedians to follow a certain course of action, which you have later unilaterally abandoned yourself. Why? Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you post or email me specific cases, I will give you direct answers. Each situation is different. Often there is extra information or more than one issue tangled together and the knot needs to be untied one string at a time. Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One very recent example is in the ArbCom case on cold fusion here. In your to-ing and fro-ing, you seem to have lost track of the one important issue involved, that of slow-but-steady civil POV-pushing (advocacy) by Pcarbonn. You have diverted matters to the overreaction of ScienceApologist to baiting; your proposed remedies now make no mention of Pcarbonn. Was that an oversight? Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn will be topic banned from Cold fusion. If I have not proposed this yet, I will do so, because that has always been my intention. Sometimes it is better to show rather than tell. His ban has substantial community support and I think the AC will do it without much fuss. If I need to prod them, I will. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this version of the workshop, you can see what Guy and I were working at the same time, and he proposed the topic ban first, and I seconded it. I see no reason to make a duplicate proposal in my section. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for now including statement n + 1 about Pcarbonn. Mathsci (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

just in case the thought had entered your head

I should like to see you go the distance, even if the chances of gaining a place becomes too remote to contemplate; consistency is not a virtue, except when it is a matter of being true to yourself (that is not to say that you haven't been consistent, but the patterns may not be discernible without access to your inner thoughts) - an area where I might flatter myself to think we are similar. That each case may be measured upon its merits, and only upon its merits, is an ideal position for an Arbiter - and something which might be missed or be unappreciated by a number of people. I said, when supporting Risker, that I would only be supporting one candidate... that may change if I believe that my support in one (or more) candidatures may prove important; perhaps it isn't consistent, but it would be true to myself to do so. Therefore I ask, please do not contemplate withdrawing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, hold your head high and run it out. It's not over till it's over and there are many who haven't voted yet. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should anyone withdraw? Staying in requires no effort! I am hopeful that people will read my statement and thereby make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you for your support! Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

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/PHG/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/PHG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah (Bronx cheer). Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw your note at Brad's talk but figured I still better give you this anyways. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Please take a look at my recent edits and give some feedback. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the archive bots, but to be honest, I enjoy doing it myself. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:Ryan Postlethwaite about something that will inevitably come up. Meanwhile, can you identify any articles you may have elevated above start class? Also, can you identify any situations where you filed reports that required administrator intervention. I'd like to demonstrate that not only can you be trusted with sysop tools, but you also have need for them. Best regards, Jehochman2 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

yup

... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Jehochman ^Talk 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you are very busy and all but...

I have never experienced an attack of vandalism on my talk page before, or user page for that matter at least until today. [5] I rolled back the vandalism and left a note on the users page. I am assuming that this about a reversion of vandalism I did this morning which got me targeted. I don't know what the policies are for this so I would appreciate it if you would tend to this for me. The anon IP has multiple warnings on their talk page as can be seen so hopefully this is easy to address for you. I would appreciate any help and advice as to how to stop this sort of vandalism to my user and/or talk page too. Thanks Jehochman, as always I appreciate how quickly and attentive you are to my concerns. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC with you! :) I tried to let you know I saw!) Wow, thank you for your very quick response, I appreciate it. Thanks Jehochman, you are wonderful, at least to me. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

Over time I have learned to reject all ideas of alliances, loyalties, animosities, or voting blocks. Instead, I base decisions on what will be best for the articles. One day I may support somebody in one matter, and the next day I might oppose them in a different one. If this upsets some people, so be it.

In other words, you are rejecting human nature, which in and of itself could cause very serious problems instead of actually helping resolve disputes in a harmonious manner. Alliances exist. Loyalties exist. Animosities exist. Voting blocks exist. We don't have to agree with them, nor should we cater to their demands, but they need to be recognized and understood. Obviously, Wikipedians are an alliance of like-minded editors, and within that group, the alliances break down into subgroups along disparate preferences. More importantly, articles are written by people, not machines. I honestly don't mean any disrespect, but it might be a good idea to review the idea of emotional intelligence. You are basically saying that the things that make us human aren't important, which could be a serious problem in your judgment. We aren't machines, and the machines have not yet taken over. If instead of rejecting what makes us human outright, for good or for bad, you made an effort to learn to understand and work with these concepts, I think you might find a groundswell of support. You are clearly intelligent enough to understand that human civilization itself is merely the ultimate expression of these alliances. To disregard this fact is, dare I say it, anti-human. Historically, you can see how these associations developed by reviewing something as simple as the history of agriculture. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure J is rejecting those notions per se; just personally - nothing wrong with being a noncomformist. Just because there are institutionalised ways of doing things (often because it is proven to be the most encompassing method for society) does not mean that someone cannot legitimately operate outside or beyond the norm for the benefit of that society. Flexibility in thought and a rejection of process or established practice for its own sake is an excellent attribute in a candidate who is looking to advance the office of Arbiter while serving it, IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will judge each situation on the merits, rather than going along with whatever cabal is seeking my support through positive or negative reinforcement. If an individual wants to talk to me, or course I will listen to their concerns and try to help them. If somebody has shown good faith to me, I will naturally tend to assume more good faith towards them, but that does not mean I will follow them blindly. Cabalism is a threat to wikipedia. It should be discouraged whenever it appears. If I see editors who always support each other or always oppose each other, that is a bad sign. Part of being human is that we think for ourselves and no two people think exactly alike. Disagreements are natural. If somebody never disagrees with me, then something is wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cabalism" is emergent behavior and it can be no more eliminated than one can eliminate the desire to sneeze. Your call to eliminate it is ironic, when in fact, every single authority structure on Wikipedia acts to encourage it. After all, it is the ultimate control mechanism. You are either with the in group or you are not. We must be editing two different websites. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If I see editors who always support each other or always oppose each other, that is a bad sign.

No, that's called paranoia. There are things called friendships. Look into it. Viriditas (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, always agreeing is nor friendship, it's enabling or pandering. If your friend is wrong, you should tell them, politely. If you must always disagree with somebody, that's feuding. Don't come here and insinuate that I am paranoid. That's rude. Go edit an article. My talk page, so I get the last word. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I prefer simpler explanations, rather than grandiose conspiracies. I still think you are missing out on the human element, which is the backbone of this site. When you say that you don't care that your actions upset people, you're sending out a poor message. Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My own perception lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, it's human nature, but these friendships can harm the encyclopedia. There are vocal administrators who are extremely fair in their perception unless it concerns one of their "friends", in which case they come across as very biased. When our friends are the topic of contention, it would be preferable to abstain from commenting, let alone from letting the tools speak. Just like abstaining would be preferable when our antagonists are the topic.

I think it goes both ways: Supporting or defending a "friend" against better judgment doesn't add objectivity and makes it look like cabalism to outsiders. Harshly criticizing or calling for action against a "friend" (or someone with whom one has just spent the past few days or weeks working together) can look like betrayal or erratic behavior. If there is a repeated pattern of "turning on" one's fellow-travelers, that might make people shy away from collaboration, because of that annoying human nature Viriditas mentions. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Sometimes I think the best course would be for editors to tell their friends privately and off-wiki when they need to reconsider their behavior. A lot of face is saved and the message is more likely to be read in the intended spirit. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is helpful to allow friends, or foes, to save face whenever possible. Off wiki communication or polite feedback online are both possibilities. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)