Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jehochman

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 15 December 2010 (→The RfC: more thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:41, 15 December 2010 by Jehochman (talk | contribs) (→The RfC: more thoughts)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

NoticeWelcome 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.

User talk:Jehochman/Archive index

LemonMonday again

Sorry to bug you Jehochman, but I mentioned you blocks of LemonMonday at a new ANI (related to further revert warring and wikihounding of others) here. Just an FYI.
Hope you're having a good weekend --Cailil 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a provisional resolution here. I'm leaving a window open for LemonMonday (and LevenBoy who's used the thread to breach his restriction again) to make a constructive comment within the next 24 hours. If that doesn't happen I'll impose the resolution as stated. If you've any views on it let me know--Cailil 19:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Now set fire to the box.

I know I have a lighter here somewhere... HalfShadow 22:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! Please help with WP:MOUNTAIN. Jehochman 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Petrol (gasoline), or are the contents of the box already near the point of autoignition? --Tothwolf (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I ignited my auto once. You'd be surprised how much this upsets the police. HalfShadow 04:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Keith Henson protection

Both the article and it's talk page have been protected for nearly two years now, an ip is asking that the protection be lifted at Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy. I haven't gone through the 300+ deleted edits, but I'm guessing the content they wish to add probably relates to the issues that caused the protection to be added in the first place. The other admin involved in protecting this has "vanished" and there is a note in the protection log to contact you before unprotecting, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk)

In short, no way. There is no possible benefit of IP editing worth the risk of letting banned Scientology editors diddle this WP:BLP. He's their number one enemy. Jehochman 21:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. There is no requirement for users to register an account. I can understand keeping the article locked, but how can we propose improvements on the talk page if we can't edit the talk page? 72.38.44.68 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors

good call.--Scott Mac 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jehochman 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad call, the article will be recreated. Count Iblis (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons based on policy? You comment is unimpressive. At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors, excepting the comments by the canvassed single purpose accounts, which were properly disregarded, 95%+ of the comments favored deletion (or virtually 100% if you exclude soapboxing-type comments). I recommend not wasting your time, and more importantly the time of other editors. It is uncivil and improper to conduct needless disputes. Jehochman 04:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The article had changed a lot during the AFD discussions; it was no longer a list of mirrors when it was deleted. Count Iblis (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If there was valid content that could be merged or moved elsewhere, please explain and I will help you get you a copy. Let's fix it directly instead of going through bureaucracy. Jehochman 04:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If you can access the deleted article, you'll see that User:emijrp (if I remember correctly) completely re-wrote it. The general text about the creation of the mirrors with some explanation without the long list (which was collapsed in the last version of the articles), should be ok. I guess this is something User:emijrp would be interested in working on... Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
How about I grab that content, and place it on Talk:Wikileaks here. From there it can be added to that or any appropriate sub article. Jehochman 16:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Content

This is the content that appears to be properly referenced and potentially salvageable. I have left out the links to mirrors, excessive quotation of primary sources, and unencyclopedic content.

On 2 December 2010, EveryDNS, a domain name registrar, dropped WikiLeaks from its entries, citing distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS) that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure".
After the site became the target of a denial-of-service attack from a hacker on its old servers, WikiLeaks moved its site to Amazon's servers. Later, however, the website was "ousted" from the Amazon servers.
After WikiLeaks was ousted from Amazon servers it installed itself on the servers of OVH in France. Following criticism from the French government, OVH sought two court rulings about the legality of its action. The court in Lille immediately allowed to keep hosting WikiLeaks, while the court in Paris stated it would need more time to examine the highly technical issue.

I hope this helps improve some article. If you feel there is other lost content of value, let me know. Somebody who knows more about Copyright should tell me if something else needs to be done to ensure proper attribution. Jehochman 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just notified User:emijrp about this. Count Iblis (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In the news

FYI: readwriteweb story tedder (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

...also reddit and Digg

You know we could IAR and create a protected soft redirect at List of WikiLeaks mirrors to http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html --Tothwolf (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not a fan of that. May as well have the article, it's an endorsement of the URL. tedder (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a huge list of links, at least. Alternatively, we could redirect to whatever subsection of the WikiLeaks article ends up covering this. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
No opinion. Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. We do not host collections of links. Anybody wanting to find mirrors can search Google. Jehochman 11:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

popcorn template

Would you please remove your template, it does nothing to aid discussion but more stifles discussion and belittles it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I rather suspect it is an inane attempt at defusing, but it takes a little more than that to defuse me - in fact, my fuse is still smouldering onwards.  Giacomo  18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It's satire, primarily directed at the ArbCom, for fommenting drama with their inane statement. Jehochman 18:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, most satire goes over my head at this place, thanks for explaining. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I posted a remark explaining my position. You know, I tested the login also, as I believe others did. Why have ArbCom singled out Giano and equated his activities to hacking in tandem with a banned user? If they have a case, make it. Otherwise STFU and don't make innuendos about an editor. Jehochman 19:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for saying it, I went there immediately and tested it also. I expect we should have our names added to the line about unsuccessfully attempting to retrieve data from the wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd.

"I also knocked on the door." That's odd, because the logs most certainly do not show that you have done so during that period of time. — Coren  21:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sneakier than the average hacker. (!) Or maybe I chickened out at the last minute. I thought I had tested it and was worried I'd be banned. Maybe you're looking at the wrong timeframe. Jehochman 21:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, once we figured out what happened, there is little point requesting that a sysadmin again inspects logs just to make an enumeration of who got their curiosity in overdrive at random times later and confirm they did. The point is, the only one who had made a public claim of having tried to log in was Giano; hence the statement.

But you really shouldn't be "knocking on doors" like that ever; in all jurisdictions where I have done forensic investigations, just trying a username/password to a system you know you do not have legitimate access or a warrant is a crime (albeit one that's basically never prosecuted on its own — it's just not worth it). It's still the kind of thing that can land you in a pile of smelly stuff. (And no, just to make things five hundred percent clear, this isn't even vaguely a legal threat). — Coren  00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I entered my own userid and password to see if I was allowed in. Maybe the logging is broken... Jehochman 01:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It's quite possible that only failed attempts to existing usernames are logged; or that this is the only thing the dev extracted from the logs. — Coren  01:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Pardon my interruption, and possibly my misunderstanding...but how do you know this Coren? Did you really do a CU on Jehochman to determine his IP and compare it with the server logs? Or did someone else? Is that kosher with the CU policy? Arkon (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, no. I know this by default: there were two persons who tried, and we know who both are. Since J isn't either, then the inference is simple.  :-) — Coren  00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Understood, thanks! Arkon (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The RfC

Since you suggest we close the RfC as redundant, I think you may not understand its purpose. The RfC is the best way of formulating a community consensus that the lead is fine. If we have a solid, recent consensus on the issue, than we can dismiss further arguments, without even having to humor them. You've been claiming that reliable sources back up the statement in question - they do, but that isn't preventing discussion. POV pushers and socks can still claim that there's no consensus for that particular wording (and there really isn't). If we can get a consensus on the current wording, then over-discussion of the issue will be against consensus. You may view the RfC as 'just anther discussion', but I believe it can be the last discussion. If you still disagree, I understand. I just thought it would be helpful to have a single, conclusive discussion rather than the vagueness of "several discussions". Swarm 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you dig through the archives and find all the past discussions? It would be a great help if you created some sort of table or history to put this in context. You'll notice that in the past I argued against using the word "torture", preferring instead to describe the act rather than labeling it. Alas, my view was not the consensus. Since then I have respected the consensus view. Jehochman 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be useful... I'll see what I can do. Swarm 12:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
"Waterboarding is the act of restaining a prisoner and pouring water over his face, mouth and nose to simulate drowning." This is very neutral and accurate. Later we can say who thinks this is torture and who thinks it isn't. The reader can then decide for themselves. I am very opposed to describing waterboarding as non-torture. That would be even further from neutral. A statement such as "Waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique" would be very bad. Jehochman 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mystery meat

Only you know why you might want to keep an eye out here. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call. On the list of Wikileaks links, too. Ray 04:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Highly involved?

Could you provide a diff which defines me as WP:INVOLVED in the DC/Cirt affair? WP:INVOLVED states "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role." Before declaring me "highly involved" could you at least point to ANY situation which makes me somehow "involved"? --Jayron32 23:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • You have had a long term set of editorial conflicts with Cirt. Saying you are uninvolved/objective with respect to Cirt is not credible. Jehochman 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I had a what with whom? Seriously? Diffs please would be nice. I am not aware of ever having a conflict with Cirt at any point. I believe you have mistaken me with someone else. I think if you are going to indicate that I have perpetrated a wrongdoing you should, you know, have to show it? I seriously have never had a conflict with Cirt over anything ever. --Jayron32 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you're not mis-spelling Jayen466? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. Satter, Raphael G.; Svensson, Peter (3 December 2010) "WikiLeaks Fights To Stay Online Amid Attacks". Associated Press (via The Charlotte Observer). Retrieved 4 December 2010.
  2. ^ Gross, Doug. "WikiLeaks cut off from Amazon servers". CNN. Retrieved 2 December 2010. Cite error: The named reference "amazon" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. Template:Fr Expulsé d'Amazon, WikiLeaks trouve refuge en France. 2 December 2010, Le Point
  4. "French web host need not shut down WikiLeaks site: judge". AFP. 6 December 2010. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
User talk:Jehochman Add topic