Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 27 February 2012

Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently.

Meowy

I think it would be worth giving you the heads-up, if you aren't already aware, that the block on Meowy (talk · contribs) has expired and the user has returned to editing. CT Cooper · talk 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then they are welcome to edit. Jehochman 03:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He according to {{Gender}}. There were suspicions of socking until very recently, but none were blatant or proven. There are no edits so far since the block expiry that appear to be problematic, so I hope it stays that way. CT Cooper · talk 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Humor tag

Please undo that. I think Elen was serious. She posted in the meta-wiki RfC along the same lines as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Her question can't possibly be serious. She must have been trolling us. Please let her come to me if she has any concerns about the tag. Jehochman 14:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've notified Elen. Note that User:Maunus also thinks there's something in that RFC perhaps worth examining . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the tag, and would ask Jehochman to ask me in future before presuming what I am thinking - advice every man ought to follow anyway when dealing with a woman (and that *is* humour). The reason for the post was that given the continuous barrage of accusations that Arbcom holds trials in secret, exonerates its friends, and sweeps everything under the carpet, I wanted to give a space to any third party who might ask "yes, but is there something in this." I don't think there is - I don't think Gwen Gale is a worse admin than anyone else - we all make errors of judgement, and do things in good faith that don't work out so well. Mbz1's life has been derailed by the way she reacted to a block on editing a website, not the block itself, let's be clear on this. But equally, there never was an RfC, there never was a massive Arbcom investigation. Everyone Mbz1 mailed it to looked at it and said "can't see it myself" and left it at that, often I suspect without emailing their response back to Mbz1. I just wondered if that was enough for the community. Evidently it was. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Lol! Seriously though, I thought ArbCom had recently looked into this matter. Why else would you ask if there was anything to look into at unless it was some sort of humor or sarcasm? Why doesn't ArbCom take a look and them make a formal statement about whatever it finds, instead of informally dismissing, or failing to respond to Mbz1? A banned user they should get a clear answer, not a disrespectful non-response. Jehochman 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get at. Yes, we did all look at it - I'd seem several iterations of it by this point, and so had a couple of others. Mbz1 posted the response she got from Arbcom at meta, and it basically just tells her to disengage. I didn't think then, and still don't think now, that a point by point refutation would have made any difference, even if it was delivered by the Archangel Michael. I think Mbz1 would just have added Gwen's ability to influence the heavenly host to her list of complaints. But I was wondering if a formal point by point answer had become necessary, and if the community wanted to see it. Perhaps I could have phrased it better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I think a formal point by point answer might actually help; I suspect most editors aren't quite so likely to stick their necks out as I sometimes am, but when I read through that whole lot, I have to say I was left with what the UK Appeal Courts would call "lurking doubt". I wouldn't be at all surprised if others were left with lurking doubts, too; so a point-by-point rebuttal may very well clear some air which the Arbs etc. may not even be aware might need to be cleared. Wihtin reason, anything which increases the community's trust in the Arbs has to be a good thing. (I think!) Pesky (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Youreallycan/Off2riorob block log

15 blocks and counting. How much longer is this going to continue? Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly. Has there ever been an RFC? Their combativeness if poisonous to the wiki. With a relatively small adjustment that energy would manifest as passion for good work. Jehochman 12:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thread is "Request for block review". Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 03:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

HI there user:Jehochman. As you may have noticed, my broadband connection is giving trouble, and I did not intend failing to notify you of the thread. *I am not (and now never will be) an admin.* So, with the block issued by you, there needs to be a review, and you can hardly fail to know that it would go to ANI, you do a lot of work there. We already crossed paths, communication-wise at the IP's talk page, and I have had my say. You are having your say. Consensus will prevail, nicht war? 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I know is that this edit and its follow-up were not advisable at all, and could certainly be construed as low-level harassment based on the fact that 90.179.235.249 pretty much had to have followed Jehochman there. That said, I think Jehochman could have passed this on to another admin, and thus avoided any sort of accusations of involvement in the first place. I don't see a long-term history of disruption in their edits, and I can understand why they are upset. I would not react in quite the same way, but that is just me. They should still certainly be listened to in good faith. Doc talk 06:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing the Holy Sentence

I'm afraid that nobody is permitted to edit the Holy Sentence. Ever. There shall always be No Consensus for any changes, and if a consensus appears to be forming, a RFC will commence. If consensus at the RFC forms to change the Holy Sentence, then the RFC will be re-advertised at ever-expanding venues using increasingly hysterical language until the correct state of No Consensus for changes is achieved. You can change anything else at WP:V and nobody will bat an eyelid, but the Holy Sentence is eternally sacrosanct and inviolable.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, we can change it. It just requires more effort, and repeatedly asking anybody who stonewalls to give specific objections. "No consensus" and then reverting is disruptive stonewalling. Jehochman 23:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)