Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:17, 16 April 2008

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

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

Sockpuppetry case against IrishLass0128

Hi. Putting this here because I am very much unsure about where to go since the case is already closed.

My run in with IrishLass does not give me the impression that she and KellyAna is the same person. Although it is clear, from edits such as this that they do know each other of wiki.

The RFCU makes the claim that the two never talk to each other, but this is not quite true; This is not quite true, they are policing each others talk pages and inform when alterations is made; and .

The lack of overlap between editing time is striking, but is consistent with one editor having internet acces at home while the other edits from work.

My view is that WP:AGF leads us to assume meatpuppetry and not sockpuppetry. This is important because it implies that Irishlass could be acting in good faith. Taemyr (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For our purposes, there is no practical difference between meatpuppetry and sock puppetry. We cannot snorkel through the wires and see who's on the other end. If we have one person with two accounts, or two people behaving like one person, the remedy is the same. It is not acceptable for two people to tag team edit in order to gain the advantage. In any case, KellyAna has behaved badly enough to get a permanent time out, at least until she indicates a desire to change. IrishLass0128 has received the least sanction that was considered, because in my judgement I wanted to extend every possible benefit of the doubt. Jehochman 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

multiple throw away sock puppets

Hi, As u have correctly identified, multiple throw away sock puppets are messing around in articles Mudaliar Sengunthar Devadasi and Gatti_Mudalis. If possible can you please semi protect all the above articles so that it is easier for genuine editors to work. Saedirof (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will protect things if they are attacked repeatedly, but not before, nor if the attacks have stopped. Jehochman 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

I went to the page you recommended re disputes and have added my information to Delicious Carbuncle's request. ]

I'm sorry you thought what I was saying was just an accusation. You are incorrect in saying it is unsubstantiated as its well supported by evidence, self admitted by the people in question, see Delicious Carbuncle's (talk)talk page.

I would have just appreciated your help without assuming I have any other agenda than to stop someone stalking me. That's all I can say. You cannot know what I have been through at the hands of the before mentioned people. But it is irrevelant I guess - except that it has now spilled onto wikipedia and a totally unrelated editor is being accused of being me in rather nasty circumstances.

Restawhile (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)restawhile

For the sake of transparency and to reduce political intrigues, my policy is to post cases to the community noticeboards whenever possible. There are some editors, probably not you, who shop around for friendly administrators to do their bidding. I will not participate in that sort of cabalism. Therefore, if you have a concern, please do post it to the correct place and then I or somebody else will help you. For stalking incidents, you should post to WP:ANI and make sure to include several "diffs" that show evidence of stalking. I hope this helps. Jehochman 03:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for standing up for me

I know it can be hard, seeing as how I'm so unpopular. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is not Iantresman socking, I would support unblocking him. Your tormentor could be another troll using this incident as cover. Jehochman 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be right. There is an entire forum of Ian Tresman allies angry at my activity at Misplaced Pages: . Soupdragon, it turns out, is one of the names of one of the members there other than Iantresman. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Add this evidence to the open cases, then let the community handle it. Jehochman 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana's sock case

Jehochman, I don't quite agree with your assessment of this sockpuppet case. I find that the creation date of the users match too well with Dana creating an account to edit his own article and then creating new accounts whenever the someone asks if he is Dana. Notice how the users just stop editing when they are being asked if they are Dana, and never defend themselves, and then keep editing with the same arguments.

I know that you are a way more experienced editor than me, and that you are experienced with sock cases, but I find this case to be hurried too much. Is there some procedure to get a checkuser done by asking to other admin or to get the case reviewed by a different admin? I don't want to "admin-shop", but I don't really feel confortable with your handling of the case, and I would like another admin with checkuser privileges to look at it and confirm that it's necessary to make a checkuser.

It just looks to me like an evident case, even if I couldn't find any actual smoking gun to point it. There is also more circumstancial evidence, like Dana and those users having all of them two spaces after every end of sentence on all comments, this being something that only happens to a percentage of users of wikipedia, and that I forgot to include on the case.

I thought of sending you a private email, but since you always say that you want to talk things on the open, I'm posting here. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, much of the complaint was stale. We don't block for old offenses. The fresh material was not convincing at all. Feel free to request checkuser if you can provide the required evidence. Jehochman 02:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see your point. You are right in that the ofenses are old. Well, if Dana really used those accounts, I hope that he sees the case and decides to never do it again, in which case the intended purpose (avoiding sockpuppetry) has been fulfilled. A block now for those old actions would have been a punitive action, I should have remembered that, sorry for that. You closed the case very correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that Enric learned something here. I wanted to alert you that FlagTheError is NOT me, and this user emailed me to say s/he got blocked indefinitely by admin East718. I sent him an email to alert him of his error and to avoid biting the newbies, and yet, this user is still blocked...and is now very discouraged. DanaUllman 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They can file an unblock request. All new accounts appear to be single purpose. Perhaps this is an overzealous fan of yours. Perhaps if they are unblocked somebody will explain to them how Misplaced Pages works, so they don't get into trouble again. Jehochman 13:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting, perhaps, that Flagtheerror's first edits were posted on 18 December 2007, the same day as this. Brunton (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Jehochman, Are you interested in popping by for a chat with the NTWW? All you need is a working headset, a glass of water (trust me, all the talking gets tiring :) and skype on your computer (it's free). We'd love to have a knowledgeable chap such as yourself on ;) Regards, Anthøny 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. What's the schedule? Jehochman 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! Well, we're on Skype just now, although it's just an informal chat, rather than a formal episode. You're welcome to add me (I'm agkwiki) and I'll put you through to the conference call, but otherwise, we're looking at getting together next Friday. We'd love to have you just now, though ;) Anthøny 01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I wouldnt mind talking to Jehochman myself although I am not on Skype right now. I was earlier however.--Filll (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because you abandoned us :) *stares* Anthøny 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my connection died.--Filll (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problems ;) Anthøny 02:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairly painless

This was fairly painless! :-) BTW, do you know if the arbitrators watch the talk page. I posted this, but I can't remember whether talk pages and main pages are mixed up together in watchlists or whether they show up separately. I was thinking of asking for advice somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

When watching a page, the talk page is also watched, and they appear as separate entries. Surely they will see your comment. My comment will be seen, but remains unseen. *:o) Jehochman 13:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you in a contrary mood today? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! I am feeling rather jovial, after a trip to Dunkin Donuts and a large coffee. Jehochman 14:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We have Dunkin Donuts here, but I guess you don't have Tesco yet? Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. We have Wild Oats, an organic market, to compensate for the hellishly good, but unhealthy fare at Dunkin Donuts. Jehochman 16:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Two birds with one stone

Hi, Jehochman. I bring something related to violation on our user naming policy and possible SSP. You're very strict to inappropriate wording or comment by editors, so I think you can clear this up. A new user named Chibalnom (talk · contribs) nominates Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies for deletion.Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies

At first the article looks quite mess without reliable citations, but I know the school is a notable school for gifted students in South Korea. However, his name concerns me more that the article, because it refers to "son of bitch" in Korean and his user page also is written with "Chibal!". He seems to be very knowledgeable of all the procedure for AFD on contrary to his registered date. Not to mention, the name is a blatant violation on the user name policy but I think he is likely a sock of this non-Korean editor. Since the romanization is not following the Revised Romanization, generally used method to transcribe Korean language into English here, I guess he pretends to be Korean. In addition, his eagerness toward Korean academic institutions and DAB pages, the two people could be the same person. Please look into this case, Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the nuanced meaning is more like "Fuck you, bitch", which qualifies as an invalid username. The fact that they are editing Korean articles creates a presumption that this is not an innocent happenstance. I will do something. Jehochman 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. :) --Appletrees (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jnelson09 and User:Sottolacqua

Hi - I saw you recently contributed to Sottolacqua's request for editor assistance. I've asked Jnelson09 to show the edit he considers vandalism, and I actually disagree with him and think that the section removed by Sottolacqua was not encyclopaedic. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this. The discussion on Jnelson09's talk page contains the bulk of the details and the edit in question is here: . Many thanks, Howie ☎ 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation tool?

I see you have something about a new citation tool on your userpage. How does it work, does it add a new tab to the top of wiki pages like Twinkle, with a dropdown selection of citation templates or something? Cirt (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a Firefox add-on. When viewing a web page the you'd like to cite, right click on the page, select WPCITE, and a little window opens with the cite code. Then copy and paste into Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. "User talk:Jehochman - Misplaced Pages, the 💕". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2008-04-14.

Ha! That is really neat, thank you so much for developing this! So it works with the template {{cite web}} primarily? Cirt (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We could program additional options, but it is easy enough to tweak the output by hand if you would like a different cite template, or to add other fields. Jehochman 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation tool for Wikinews?

Is there a way that a similar Citation tool could be developed like this for Wikinews? Over there the primary source template used is {{source|url=|title=|author=|pub=|date=}} - for example as used at n:3000 homeless after fire breaks out in Chad refugee camp. Only if you have a chance - I know this would really be useful at Wikinews because we rely quite heavily on online sources, and a lot of people would really appreciate it - just that we use a different form of source-template. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Transparency: ArbCom and Oversight Process

Not knowing to whom I should pose this administrative question, I thought that I would turn to you. I notice that User:PHG was blocked for one week with the "strong encouragement" that he find a mentor. I don't disagree with the suggestion (it will likely do the user some good), but I notice that "encouragement" is not exactly the same as directly ordering a user to do something.

For my own edification, what should happen if the user (or any user) simply ignored the Arbcom's "encouragement" at the end of this one-week block and proceeded to edit as if nothing had happened (a reasonable assumption based on the user's history)? In terms of administrative process, what would happen? J Readings (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If they managed to self-correct past problems, they could happily continue editing. However, if they were to repeat past mistakes, which seems likely since PHG denies having made any mistakes, the result may be a series of rapidly escalating blocks. Jehochman 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. J Readings (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article Megalithic yard restored

User:Little sawyer has restored the article Megalithic yard. I think you have some information about his history and posts under a different name.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no feelings about this article. If there is some sort of abusive sock puppetry, please file a report. Regards, Jehochman 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been deleted now anyway.Doug Weller (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

Hi. I have added some comments to a recent sockpuppet report on Rafaelsfingers.

I note from your checkuser report that you did not ask for a check against Rafaelsfingers and supergreenred - maybe you should put those together with the IPs, as it may be that Sky really is in Taiwan - in which case there may still be a sockpuppetmaster in San Fransisco, where I think both Rafael and Supergreen are editing from.

As for Aho Aho, if you feel he is a sockpuppet then sky may warrant a further remedy, as the AA account has continued to edit even after Sky was originally blocked for sockpuppeting. John Smith's (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This report is a tangled mess, but I will pull it apart one thread at a time. Jehochman 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to be more helpful in how I've structured my comments. John Smith's (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you look into edit-warring? Only if you have the time there's a 3RR report on supergreenred for reverting four times in 24 hours 9 minutes. I believe that is grounds for a block. See here. John Smith's (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Controlled demo lead

Hi Jehochman, sorry about that unnecessary edit of your revert. I thought I was editing the version you had just reverted. I know it has been discussed before, but it would be good if you and others briefly state your opinon (in favour of A) here so that the consensus can be easily identified for next time. While I lean to B, I don't mind A. If consensus is for A, I'll take it upon myself to point B-ers in the direction of the poll. Best--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)