I usually reply to posted messages here, but if the message is important I'll notify you on on your talkpage as well.
If I posted a message on your talkpage I will reply there, but feel free to notify me on my talk if you feel it is urgent.
I'd prefer it if noone removed content here, but naturally I have no objections if it's just grammar.
Please don't revert my edits on this page.
Finally: no insults. I can take criticism as much as the next guy, but outright personal attacks will be reverted and reported.
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Director! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Since you have taken part in substantial discussion on this matter, I am informing you that an RfC has been opened on WP Yugoslavia
[1]
◅ PRODUCER (TALK) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I realize we have a legitimate disagreement of opinion here, and I'd like to resolve it in a reasonable way. Rather than spreading it out to a million pages, Talk:Leon Trotsky seems like the best place to discuss this, and get third opinions, so it's not just you and me.--Pharos (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well good day to you, Jehochman. I would expect the details (or at least the basic reason) would accompany the block, but since they did not, I look forward to them eagerly. And I'm sure they'll be very good "details" indeed - because if this is a joke, its not a very good one. I'm led to believe abuse of admin privileges to indeff block long-serving editors on a whim is generally frowned upon. -- Director(talk)16:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I see. I hope you're aware of how inappropriate this action is, on how many separate levels?
#1 Firstly, from what I am reading of the thread you linked, you are WP:INVOLVED in the discussion regarding the relevant dispute at hand. You've made it abundantly clear you are heavily biased regarding the ongoing content dispute, before blocking the opponents of the side you fancy.
#2 Secondly, indeffing users on grounds of perceived "POV-pushing", without discussion, is against communal norms and policies. I dare say perhaps especially if the users have almost double your own contributions to the project and have been expanding it for almost a decade. I pushed no POV, in fact practically everything I did over there has been restoring the status quo ante, against changes generally opposed on the talkpage by Producer, myself, and a slew of other users you seem to have forgotten to block. As for your "antisemite" remarks, I believe they're plainly sanctionable.
#3 Thirdly: said lack of discussion renders users accused of misconduct incapable of defending themselves, which might make it easier to miss things like this SPI report. Or this one. You also might try not posting a discussion I never heard of or participated in as evidence of my being a sock of Producer.
Now, I am biased of course, but so far as I can see nothing you posted demonstrates any kind of misconduct, beyond advocating an article alongside fourteen other people. Frankly I think if anyone should be sanctioned - its you, for abusing admin tools, as well vicious slander and personal attack. The more I read of that sad exchange over on Jim's talk, the more it seems to me you fancy yourself some kind of antisemite-hunting superhero.
Naturally I don't expect you will reverse your action, but this is quite blatant misuse of admin tools and I will of course be appealing. -- Director(talk)19:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please relax the accusations and focus on the correctness or incorrectness of your own behavior. That's my advice for filing a successful appeal. Checkuser does not prove accounts are unrelated. You could be two people working together, or one person editing from two network locations or using a proxy. Checkuser is not any sort of magic. JehochmanTalk20:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the advice, but its kind of hard to "focus on my behavior" when you've got nothing but vague nonsense to go on from the block rationale. I can only really point out that I can't see any TE or POV-pushing in anything you posted, and that the block is suspicious. I will also request an evaluation as to whether you are, in fact, WP:INVOLVED. Though I agree that personal attacks and abuse of admin tools as such, are not related to the matter at hand.
As "flawed" as checkuser might be, its objectively a bit more to go on than "they might be working together!", with "they agree on this talkpage!" as support. As are the statements of virtually anyone who's worked with Producer or myself. -- Director(talk)20:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
You have to admit that the user names are really similar, and you both capitalize all the letters. It's like you are trying to show you are two peas in the same pod. I've linked to three discussions where you and/or PRODUCER are posting many, many times, both pushing the same point of view. If anybody reads those pages carefully, I think they will come to the same conclusion I did, that both accounts should be blocked until there is an agreement about how to prevent further problems.
Questions for you to address:
Why do you and PRODUCER have such similar user names? Are you friends or otherwise working together?
(edit conflict) All that said, I will point out this is the first time I ever heard of metapedia, and if Producer did in fact copy content from that site I am prepared to re-nominate the article for deletion myself. So far as I can see, however, that's just more of that distasteful slander I'm reading so much of: the Metapedia article was expanded through the typical "biaspedia" procedure of mirroring cherry-picked Wikipedia content - almost a monthafter the Wikipedia article was created by Producer. Before its expansion in March the article bore no resemblance to Wikipedia's article (I'd post the diffs but the site is apparently blacklisted). Its good to know Metapedia is apparently a place I can use to get anyone I dislike indeff blocked, by mirroring their contributions there. -- Director(talk)20:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree with DIREKTOR that indeffing users who edited wikipedia for so many years, without any previous discussion, is against communal norms.
Important note: I am involved editor, not only in J+C dispute, but also in many other disputes with DIREKTOR and PRODUCER, often as opposed to them. I don't say I disagree with your action, but I just think that communal norms should be followed, especially if they really deserve to be banned. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Don't bother with thanking. There is nothing mixed in my post, though I might have been clearer. The point is simple: the bigger misdeeds people are accused for, the more important is to follow the norms to sanction them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Responding to Senator McCarthy's inquiries above:
I explained that about fifty separate times, and I find it outrageously insulting that you indeff blocked me first, and asked me about it later. My username refers to a "director" in the sense of a business executive. You can tell by the use of the letter "K". Its a Serbo-Croatian word that can only mean director (business). Producer's name is in English, and is apparently derived from film-making terminology. Its also an appropriate pun, since he has apparently "produced" quite a bit of content on this project [3]. Why are the names capitalized? Well mine is capitalized because that's my childhood nickname (in an ironic sense), and its simply the way in which I used to sign into video games, which back in the day did not have lowercase - if I must go "full disclosure" here! Why Producer capitalized his username, I have no idea.
Because the psycho Nazis at that insane asylum selectively mirrored the Wikipedia article! A month later. As biaspedias usually do.
No, Senator. But I don't think it can be improved at all unless the participants stop trying to change it through edit-warring, and respect basic Wikipedia behavioral guidelines.
Because the standing consensus at the Jewish Bolshevism article (which I opposed!) is that the article does not include the topic. That's why the article was created in the first place. As to why The Four Deuces advocates diametrically opposite points of view whenever it suits him - you'll have to ask him that.
Because, so far as I can see, its written through strict and rigorous adherence to highest-quality reliable sources.
I like the tone of your answers, even though I don't agree with your point 5. Nevertheless, I'm going to unblock you. One bit of a warning though: Pharos is cleaning up Jews and Communism. Pharos is another very experienced editor with a good reputation. Please don't obstruct his work. Thank you. JehochmanTalk22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am not involved in any way in editing the article in question, but have offered (as I recall) some advice on the talk page. I want to thank User:DIREKTOR for his (relatively) calm response. I also want to thank User:Jehochman for acting promptly in what he clearly believes was in defense of WP, and for unblocking DIREKTOR now. I think it is important for everyone to continue to focus on WP:AGF. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Jehochman's "bit of warning" just above launched AGF out the window for me. Whether or not Pharos' edits are beneficial, it seems to me Jehochman may well be using his admin tools to intimidate participants in a content dispute, in order to render an outcome he openly favors. -- Director(talk)22:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
No editorial outcome is pre-ordaned by my actions. My suggestion not to obstruct Pharos (or any editor) from improving the article is good advice for you (or any other editor). Please give him a chance and see in total what results, then discuss any diagreements. JehochmanTalk22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
These diffs show the type of edit that is evidence of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLE. [4][5][6] I predict that if the editing dispute on Jews and Communism continues, the result will be arbitration and bans. If you don't want to be one of the editors who gets banned, please take the high road. I strongly recommend that you personally follow a zero revert rule. If you see an edit you don't like, go to the talk page and calmly, politely explain why and wait for other editors to respond. If any editor refuses to discuss, they are setting themselves up to be the ones sanctioned. Think long term, not about the article content of the next minute. Finally, you need to recognize that you won't get your way even half of the time. Make suggestions and take it in stride if they aren't adopted. It is better to get one third of what you want and have it stick, than to go for 100% and get nothing. JehochmanTalk14:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I tend to think they're evidence of WP:BRD and WP:CONS. Jehochman, the way to stabilize the article is to impose that policy on the participants. Simply following policy that embodies a lot of experience in conflict resolution. Anyone editing repeatedly to introduce changes that don't (yet) have consensus, or are merely still discussed - should be blocked. For a day, or two days.
Upholding policy. Its very, very simple, and it would be very, very effective. 0RR, if you'll pardon, is a terrible idea: I had to take one glance at the article to notice IZAK and others had already broken it, trying to take advantage of your roughing Producer and me up.
Hopefully it won't get to ARBCOM (I do know what that means), but if it becomes necessary, then so be it. I've had my share of experience over there, and I like to think the place has a function beyond being some kind of boogeyman. That said, I take your point, and I myself have decided to go by 1RR per day (at most, ofc). As always, I will certainly not revert-war for any new edits that are opposed on the talkpage.
Re Pharos, I appreciate your advice in modifying my (admittedly inappropriate) attitude, and I will certainly do my best to assume more good faith with regard to the user. However, I must ask: do you happen to know Pharos? Off-Wiki, I mean. -- Director(talk)07:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I believe we live in the same part of the world and have met at a wiki meetup, but otherwise, no. I don't even remember his name is real life. JehochmanTalk11:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ah; my sock sense was tingling, apologies :). Used to go around hunting socks, with some success, if I do say so myself.
Well, all things considered, forgive me if I see it as rather ironic that you're more closely "associated" with Pharos than I with Producer. -- Director(talk)16:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am alarmed by this edit [7]. You should never reference another editor's religion, race or nationality to challenge their edits or worse to suggest excluding them. This diff is ground to ban you from Wikipedia. Please remove it swiftly. JehochmanTalk16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I want it crystal clear: I did NOT suggest anyone's edits should be challenged, nor that anyone should be excluded, based on their religious beliefs. I suggested, as I had before, that IZAK is not a useful contributor, and should go away, NOT because of his religion, but because of his agenda-driven TE and POV-pushing. And that, I believe, is perfectly clear from my post. It is entirely irrelevant to me what religion he may subscribe to. What matters to me is that he follows policy, that he doesn't edit-war, or disrupt the talkpage.
Stating someone is religious, and is pushing a right-wing, religious agenda, is perhaps not entirely civil, but so far as I know - it takes a very liberal interpretation of policy to ban an editor for it from this project. The kind of "liberal" interpretation that an involved user might have.
Which brings me to my next point: you are very much WP:INVOLVED in that article. That is not really disputable at this point. I perceive you as biased towards a particular content outcome, and with regard to your off-Wiki acquaintances. According to WP:ADMIN, you are not qualified to issue sanctions to fellow involved users. Equally, you should not try to threaten and intimidate other users through "warnings". That is abuse of admin status.
This is setting aside that your insinuations and accusations, being little more than unsubstantiated opinions, are in effect perI think it is, in that I have stricken my request for IZAK to cease participating, and have made it clear my opposition to the user is not based on his religion or ethnicity, but rather his pushing a political agenda through edit-warring and TE. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)sonal attacks. When you say to someone he is pushing antisemitic propaganda, or presuming to exclude editors based on their religion - you are slandering that user.
Your point is nonsensical. Why does "not a Jew" imply "no interest in Jews or Communism"? And, conversely, why should being a Jew be a prerequisite to being "inclined to disassociate Jews and Communists"? Indeed, this is typical prejudice of the worst kind - and basically a textbook case of it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've reworded the post somewhat, to make my position clearer. And to avoid malicious misrepresentation of my comment. -- Director(talk)18:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think it is, in that I have stricken my request for IZAK to cease participating, and have made it clear my opposition to the user is not based on his religion or ethnicity, but rather his pushing a political agenda through edit-warring and TE. -- Director(talk)18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but if your "opposition to the user is not based on his religion or ethnicity", why do you think it is necessary or helpful to mention his religion or ethnicity to begin with? Also, please keep WP:REDACT in mind when editing comments others have already replied to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Because it would not make sense that anyone with a "right-wing/religious" point of view, with no interest in Jews or Communism, should for some reason be necessarily inclined to disassociate Jews and Communism. My point would be nonsensical if I didn't mention the user's ethnicity. It is quite absurd that I should "answer" here for daring to do so. -- Director(talk)18:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your point is nonsensical. Why does "not a Jew" imply "no interest in Jews or Communism"? And, conversely, why should being a Jew be a prerequisite to being "inclined to disassociate Jews and Communists"? Indeed, this is typical prejudice of the worst kind - and basically a textbook case of it. It's not daring, it's disturbing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
