| Revision as of 00:23, 24 February 2008 editNeutral Good (talk | contribs)613 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:35, 19 November 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,383,235 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Jehochman/Archives 25. (BOT) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Inline image | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |image = File:Naturhistorisk Privatundervisning.jpg | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | |
|size = 500px | ||
| |align = center | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |alt = Placeholder alt text | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jehochman/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |fullwidth = yes | |||
| |capcenter = yes | |||
| |caption = <br/>{{big|{{big|"Hold on, I zoned out for a minute. Which one of you was the Icewhiz sock again?"}}}}{{small|]}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|age=7|target=./Archive {{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot}} | |||
| <!--my archives are messed up so I have removed the links. They might be fixed some day--> | |||
| <div class="plainlinks" style=" | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| background-color: {{{bgcolor|#BBDDFF}}}; | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:Jehochman/Archives | |||
| {{#if:{{{extra-style|}}}|{{{extra-style}}};}} | |||
| |format= %%i | |||
| {{#if:{{{width|}}}|width: {{{width}}};}} | |||
| |age=168 | |||
| border: 1px solid RoyalBlue; | |||
| |minkeepthreads=1 | |||
| {{#if:{{{border-color|}}}|border-color: {{{border-color}}};}} | |||
| |maxarchsize=350000 | |||
| {{#if:{{{color|}}}|color: {{{color}}};}} | |||
| |numberstart=25 | |||
| font-weight: bold; | |||
| |header={{aan}} | |||
| margin: 2em 0 1em; | |||
| |archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki> | |||
| padding: .5em 1em; | |||
| }} | |||
| vertical-align: middle; | |||
| clear: both; | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| "> | |||
| {| style="background: transparent;" valign="middle" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| | Please leave a . I answer posts on the same page. | |||
| |}</div> | |||
| {{TOCright}} | |||
| == {{user|Standshown}} == | |||
| Per ] you asked to be notified if edit warring resumed. It seems to be all this user does. While Stagalj has been blocked as a sock, this editor shows no willingness to accept the agreements of other editors and will edit war over long periods of time even by removing cited information until he gets his way. See the edit histories here and here and here .--] (]) 13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on ] and placed on editing restriction per '']''. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is confirmed by checkuser Standshown=Smerdyakoff and Stagalj has not been declared innocent . They have supported one another in RFC about Puppet state and in article Serbia (1941-44) --] (]) 07:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Jehochman. Sorry I am posting here with a few concerns, but there is a warren of discussion pages regarding the issue. It is also quite a novel approach to reducing disruption, so the channels and forums for this 'probation' on articles are not evident. | |||
| *The template has been included at '']'', where the talk page became a forum for this issue, but to include it here greatly increases the scope of the 'sanction'. | |||
| *I also note that someone included the ] in the template. The category page states, ''These articles have been placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee.'', which is not accurate AFAIK. | |||
| *The ] to this issue would seem to ], but I believe the community may have acted rashly in doing this. Some points relating to the implications, management, and establishment of precedence were not adequately discussed - IMO. I hope the discussion is reinvigorated. | |||
| Thanks for putting your efforts into finding solutions to disruption, I hope my comments are useful. ] ] 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC) and added links 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Community ban of ] == | |||
| I have proposed a community ban of CompScientist, based upon a new sock puppet that cropped up today at ]. While blocking the user may work in the short term, a community ban may be more preferred and was actually suggested at a prior CU. My account is listed at ]. Cheers, ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] sockpuppets == | |||
| Jehochman, | |||
| is there a faster way to block new socks? As soon as one is blocked, new ones sprout up, restoring the same edits. I see a new IP, 68.38.31.220, just a few minutes really after you blocked based on the 5th report. | |||
| Ironically, I was thinking about asking if there was any way to revisit the initial ban (Ukraine is politically divided down the middle. On the issues he tries to contribute on, here on WP, he is more or less alone, and clearly feels that one POV is getting pushed.) He might have helped balance articles - but his naming of RL ids and his ban-evading sock-use are too much. ] (]) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Yeah, just block them. ;-) You can leave notes for me or any other administrator who is familiar if there are very obvious socks. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Were it so easy. :) I am not an admin (nor should I become one). But in this case these are dirt obvious, and he creates them in flurries. I assume there will be 2, 3, 4 more, and then nothing until next weekend, or the weekend after. Here's another, newer: 80.97.94.178 . (didn't you range block in the 80.97s? ) ] (]) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not yet. I am stepping out. Please take this to ANI for follow up. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. I'll file at AN/I with the arrival of the next sock. ] (]) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Abusive sockpuppets == | |||
| I have blocked both confirmed accounts from ]. I have raised the situation for further review at: ]. If you have further insight and/or evidence into the situation, it would be sincerely appreciated. Cheers! ] (]) 11:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Article probation == | |||
| Given that you have been instrumental in setting probation for several articles, could you please take a look at ]? Thank you. ] <small>]</small> 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Deletion of ] and ] == | |||
| Hello Jehochman | |||
| I have been out of the loop for a while. I would like to get clarity on this topic if possible. I left this message on the talk page of the person who did delete the said pages. | |||
| "I am not an employee of this company. I have been away since I added these articles. My first article about this company was approved as should its other aspects. See ].Coke, Pepsi, Gatorade Powerade all have a presence. All their research is in-house reseach. What ] offers has been academically proven in peer review journals and is used in the medical field. Gatorade and powerade have not and are not recomended by physicians. These articles are worthy of being published in Misplaced Pages because, the product has been scientifically proven and it is an evolution of high quality natural health products for rehydration." | |||
| Is there anything else I can do? | |||
| ] | |||
| : Yes. Level with me. Your goal is to promote these products, isn't that right? This is apparent from the tone of your post. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, with the understanding that every thing on wiki is a promotion of information. Please see ]. As such, cera products has been verified by FDA, and numerous academic, peer reviewed journals. Again please see ]. My current understanding is that as long as there is enough ] then the material is substanciated. True? | |||
| With apprieciation for your work. | |||
| ] (]) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Not true. These products should not have their own pages. They have not received sufficient independent coverage to warrant separate articles from the company. Debating this with me is not productive. I recommend you discuss this at ]. I strongly urge you to disclose the apparent connection between yourself and the company. Perhaps you are a dealer, affiliate, PR agency employee, or other connected party. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks on Talk:Homeopathy == | |||
| Would you take a look at please? —] (''']''') 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, did you actually place this request at ]? It doesn't look as if you did, and I was wondering if that was required? -- ] (]) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : A clerk will list it eventually. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK :-) -- ] (]) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| More of the endless homeopathy stuff. Perhaps you could suggest to some of the editors that undiscussed reverts are a bad thing? ] (]) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Come to my page. . . I have a response. Thank you.] (]) 08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note my comments on my talk page that I believed that I was following the guidelines of the conditions stated at ]. ] (]) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am respectfully requesting that you lift my 7 day ban on homeopathy related articles. I sincerely believed that I was following the letter and the spirit of the guideline at ]: "''Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article''" ]. There did not appear to be any reasonable reason for me to repeat what had been discussed so extensively and repeatedly. ] I also did ''not'' revert, but made changes in accord with what appeared to be the consensus (after very long and extensive discusssion) at the article discussion page: I removed the inappropriate therapeutic claims for homeopathy, and simply returned 1 sentence (with reference) stating that the plant was used in the manufacture of homeopathic products. ] (]) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] amended == | |||
| In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in ] is amended by adding: | |||
| :"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of ] or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at ]." | |||
| :All editors, particularly including ] and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a ], are strongly urged to edit ] and related articles only in conformity with all Misplaced Pages policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted. | |||
| For the Arbitration committee, ] 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Frustration on ] == | |||
| I was wondering if you could help mediate a dispute at ] (also see related discussion at ]). ] appears to be deliberately stonewalling when I ask him to present his arguments for inclusion of the pseudotemplate. It's impossible to carry on an actual discussion about the content this way. I'm hoping that an outside, authoritative voice might help to break us out of this cycle. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (Update) Well, things have gotten a bit better with some effort, so mediation might not be necessary at this point. Ronz's behavior still does leave a bit to desire here (almost as if he was trying to make us waste time), but hopefully we're at least past that. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| == re User:Arion 3x3 == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| Just a heads up, following the discussion at their ] the editor has posted a request to lift the article block at ]. You may wish to put your side. ] (]) 15:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Thanks for archiving. . . == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Hi Jehochman, thanks for closing this SSP case . I see that C1 looks to be on a wikibreak, hopefully s/he can recharge, I fear that WQA may have caused him/her too much stress over the long term. Anyways, thanks, ] (]) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :The results of the third sockpuppet investigation in the history of this content dispute may be found . Some editors, and even an administrator, are using the unresolved sockpuppet accusation as an excuse to dodge mediation. So that excuse no longer exists. ] (]) 00:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 02:35, 19 November 2024
"Hold on, I zoned out for a minute. Which one of you was the Icewhiz sock again?"Source
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)