User talk:Jehochman

Nomination of Search engine optimization methods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Search engine optimization methods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search engine optimization methods (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic

Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday August 2 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP) (also on meetup.com) 1pm–7pm - come by any time! @ Bartel-Pritchard Square entrance (Prospect Park West and 15th St), immediately on the lawn to your left as you walk through the lovely lotus columns. Subway: ​ to 15th Street – Prospect Park (IND Culver Line) We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

SRI International

I thought you might have an interest in this. The page was brought to my attention by an employee from one of their competitors, who was wondering why their article doesn't look like that. CorporateM (Talk) 02:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday August 19 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Request advice

Hi, Jehochman. I sincerely regret that I must bother you with this, since calm months have gone by since you graciously offered on 15:28, 8 December 2014] that "should there be further needling" between editor Winkelvi and to "come to my talk page and I will deal with it directly."

I had not been bothered by Winkelvi since you posted that, shortly after he had promised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865 on 03:57, 8 December 2014 that he " can avoid interacting with Tenebrae without a formal/official interaction ban." Yet on on Sunday, from out of the blue, he came to a 3RR report I had filed. against an unrelated anon IP, specifically to attack me [1] by groundlessly and aggressively "propos[ing] a boomerang" against me. His claims were so baseless and needling that, finally, another editor called him on it [2]. He then went to the article's talk page, where he again insisted on poking at me — despite having had no previous interest in the article until seeing that I was there.

I did try to defuse the situation, which escalated at the article talk page. I offered that despite his not keeping his vow to stay away from me that I wouldn't bring him up to AN/I or IBAN if he would simply agree again not to interact with me (in second paragraph at [3]). He responded with a veiled threat that "it [would] not end well for [me]". [4].

And it isn't just me: This year so far, at least two other editors have also accused him of "hounding" them — their word (Joseph Prasad at [5] and Coretheapple at 21:44, 22 January 2015 on this page, where I can't seem to find a diff URL). Another talked about his "battleground mentality" [6]. Even admin Bbb23, who doesn't particularly care for me, said this year (in something I was not involved with) that Winkelvi's "reaction to this report [against him] evinces at best a lack of maturity, defensively attacking the filer when Winkelvi is in the wrong." [7].

You were kind enough to offer help in this situation, so I'd like to ask your advice on what I should do. I am perplexed, for reasons I gave on my last post on the article talk page: "I don't know what need you have to keep coming after me and interacting with me. But it's apparently a need: There are millions of Wikipedia articles and thousands of editors. You don't have to interact with me. Yet you choose to. Why? Why? Why?" --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:, please comment on the above. Do you agree to stop interacting with editors who find your presence nettlesome? This is a big place; there's no need to associate with those who don't want to. Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I already stopped interacting with him, even though he insists on continuing to interact and initiate contact with me. Take a look at the 3RR filing he was recently involved in at which I commented. He wouldn't stop initiating contact with me - even though he insisted I do so with him. Same at the Gigi Hadid talk page. He says he doesn't want anything more to do with me, yet he keeps talking to me and making accusations and bringing up garbage from over a year ago as well as poking and goading me into a fight. Even at that article's talk page, it wasn't required of him to respond the first time he did. He could have left it alone, but didn't. I was only trying to help with a content dispute; he is the one who took it to an unnecessary level with more accusations and finger-pointing and rehashing of old arguments long since forgotten by me. I finally decided that it was a "I hate you, please don't leave" kind of situation and made the choice to just stop answering his questions and responding to his accusations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I won't argue. If Winkelvi stays away from me, that's all I ask. But for the record, he said at 02:38, 18 August 2015 that he "would" keep interacting with me: "Sorry, but I'm not going to make promises ...[to not interact with you] to keep you from filing an AN/I." [8]. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And also for the record, I find the armchair psychology accusing me of "I hate you, please don't leave" behavior offensive and a personal attack on my ethics and apparently mental health. It was uncalled-for aggression. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no record here so don't worry about it. The both of you, to avoid irritating each other and more importantly yourselves, just steer clear when you see the other person. If Tenebrae is edit warring, surely somebody will notice and take action. There's no need for Winkelvi to comment on it. Likewise, Tenebrae, please try to conserve oprobrium. Feel free to return here if I can help in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

My sincere thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi again ... I can't believe this

He has followed me yet again to a page he's never previously edited: Brian Austin Green: Here's the article's history page going back to 2010, long before Winkelvi joined Wikipedia.

You can see his edits on the history page. They happen to be contentious, unilateral changes (despite other current editors having been collegially discussing the issue on the article's talk page). Yet even if they were the most wonderful edits in the world, he agreed right here just days ago not to follow me around.

I won't even get into the other falsehoods of his most recent post above, but I think this puts a lie to his incredible claim that I want to interact with him. He came to that article where he'd never before been, and where I've been actively editing and actively discussing on the talk page. Please help me. I don't know what to do anymore and in an ANI he'll just lie like he did above about me following him, which as I'm sure isn't even a question anymore of being a blatant falsehood. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:, this is a final warning. Please don't follow Tenebrae to articles you have not edited previously. If you do the block will be 6 days, double the last one that wasn't reversed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I swear I did not follow him there. I had no clue he had edited the article. I went there via a recent changes patrol. I was asked by another editor on my talk page (he came there based on my edits of the Green article) to go to the talk page and join in discussion/an RfC. After seeing Tenebrae on the talk page of the article yesterday, I decided to stay away from the article. If you notice, I haven't edited it since then. My edits came BEFORE he commented on the talk page yesterday at the RfC. And, honestly, I thought he was following me again when I saw him pop up on the talk page, but decided just leaving there would be best. And, just now doing a larger look, I see he's been at the article (via the talk page) for a while. I honestly had no clue. Based on all this, I'd appreciate it if you would null your warning. I have thousands of articles on my watch list and frequently do Recent Changes Patrol. I'm not going to check every new article I edit to see if he has ever been there before -- that would be ridiculous. I am not following him, have no desire to do so, just as I said to you days ago (as seen above in another section). And just for the record: I have not lied and do not lie, in spite of the accusations Tenebrae made in his comments above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman - I'm away at the moment so can't give this the time it deserves, but please see a message on my Talk page from Lootbrewed regarding another just-happening instance of combative BattleWiki and possible canvassing by Winkelvi. I'm not really the type to go around "telling" on people, and Tenebrae and I rarely see eye-to-eye, but after Winkelvi's previous five blocks he/she indicated he/she had learned techniques to positively interact with editors who have different opinions and it's appearing those techniques have again been forgotten. BlueSalix (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you are still hounding my edits and stirring the pot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh sheesh. In the last 12 months we've edited the same article space together twice. [9]. No one is "out to get" you. I'm not sure what kind of game you're playing but count me out, please. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The only way you got to this discussion was either by monitoring my talk page or looking at my contributions. You brought up another article/situation, totally unrelated to this, in an attempt to poison the well. You even pinged another uninvolved editor to come here. You are hounding me. Stop it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. I do have your Talk page on my Watch list due to aforementioned issues. I regret you feel watching your Talk page constitutes hounding, but am happy to agree to disagree. BlueSalix (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also Shaun King (activist) in which Winkelvi refused to stop his blind reverts of my edits intended to bring the WP:COATRACKed article up to some semblance of compliance with the BLP policy, and instead went running straight to AN3, where two admins agreed that my edits upheld both the letter and spirit of foundational policy related to fair treatment of biographical subjects. Then again yesterday he engaged in another revert war, using misleading edit summaries to hide the fact that he was removing a direct quote from the article subject from the article's lede which directly denounced the WP:COATRACKed claims. This editor's issues don't seem to be isolated to one or two articles. Winklevi, you should probably consider that when half a dozen different editors all have significant issues with you on different articles all at the same time, the problem isn't them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And now we see the piling on and shark circling/hounding expands. Obviously, you also followed me here, NBSB. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

He's also been canvassing editors with his same colorful block history to Jehochman's talk page [10]. Birds of a feather? BlueSalix (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please keep me out of it, and if you could also stop monitoring my talk page. Stirring the pot indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Given our past issues, I would kindly suggest you stay away from me, and I will do the same. Go do something constructive instead. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My comments to Cwobeel were not canvassing. Following me to his page is more evidence of hounding on your part. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A more likely explanation is that, like me, some of these editors probably have User talk:Jehochman page on their Watchlist and noticed the activity here, rather than scrutinizing another editor's contribution list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be an AGF conclusion - and if it were true, would please me to no end because I don't like to think negatively about others. That said, BlueSalix already admitted to following me here in comments above. So, the possibility you are suggesting, Liz, is only half a possibility. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Last time I looked 408 editors had this page watchlisted. I'm the 49th most watched user on Wikipedia. Winkelvi, either there's a conspiracy out to get you or else you're acting in a way that causes multiple editors to be annoyed. I see no evidence of a conspiracy. Jehochman ^Talk 01:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I didn't do a damned thing for Tenebrae (who actually is the one thinking conspiracy by baselessly accusing me of following him around) to get so upset about. I went to an article he has edited not knowing that he edits it. That's all that happened. As I already stated, I went there via the recent changes page. After I was invited to comment on the talk page, I saw Tenebrae there, decided not to comment because he was there, and that was that. Note that it took Tenebrae nearly a day to bring this to you after I had edited the article. Nothing happened to get him in a dither. I was there and then I wasn't. It really is that simple. This is a non-starter. As far as the other editors chiming in, Blue Salix is likely using me to get to Cwobeel with whom he has an old axe to grind. NorthBySouthBaranof is still pissed because I took him to 3RR last week. I don't see a conspiracy, I just see several editors who like drama. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm "using" you to "get to" another editor? Are you listening to yourself? I know you've been told this by others, but let me reiterate: you are not the subject of a far-reaching conspiracy. BlueSalix (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is more at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reflexed block review, although only some of the current participants are there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, don't you dare even talk about me. Don't ascribe motives to me, and don't analyze me. You are a clever, dissembling manipulator, who claims to do nothing wrong and so one editor after another after another after another must simply be out to get you because they "like drama." Jesus. I've caught you in enough falsehoods that I don't believe a word that comes out of your mouth. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Along with all the other things you just called me, you make the claim that you've "caught" me in "falsehoods". That's a pretty strong charge. Please elaborate with undeniable proof -- and when you do, please also provide diffs. If you do not or cannot, I hope you will strike that statement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak for Tenebrae, however, just a few hours ago another editor had to advise you that "I wanted you to know what is acceptable so that you dont make unintentional false statements." [11]. So it seems, at a very cursory glance by an uninvolved editor (me), you do in fact have a propensity to spread falsehoods and that propensity has been observed even by editors whom you haven't subjected to siege. The underlying questions at this point are (a) whether you're doing it on purpose or not, and, (b) whether you are cognizant to the disruption your unusual behavior is causing. I suspect you're not doing it on purpose. However, I am, personally, of the opinion that a six-month block would afford you the time to better familiarize yourself with WP in an observer capacity and you might be better able to positively contribute in a non-disruptive manner on your return. BlueSalix (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi

Is there anything that can be done about the editor Winkelvi, who is essentially trying to take control of numerous articles he edits? For example, today Winkelvi has made, so far, over 60 edits to Josh Duggar in just a few hours! I asked another experienced editor I saw in an article talk page discussion about this, but haven't received a reply. And I see you're an administrator so I was hoping you could provide some guidance or action. Winkelvi reported me and several other editors for edit-warring in articles he "controls". I'm not sure, but I don't think any have resulted in blocks. Thanks for any help you can provide. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Winkelvi's outrageous editing at Josh Duggar have just resumed and I see that he has now even reverted me, using a bogus edit summary ("too wordy for the lede") as he does with many, many editors. As you will see, I not only added a reliable source but also an important wikilink, which he inexplicably removed. His editing is getting out of control and essentially destroying articles, not only because of his extraordinarily high number of edits in individual articles, but also his unilateral declaration of what's acceptable with regard to many other editors' contributions. Finally, his number of reverts just today is probably too high to count. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: Jehochman, Lootbrewed has followed me to the Duggar article and attempted edit warring with me there today. It is not the first article he has followed me to (he has followed me to noticeboards and user talk pages, as well). I have been editing the article since mid-July 2015. The WikiHistory statistics found here show that his first edit there was today [12]. That edit was a change to something I had just edited. When I explained upon redoing the work in an edit summary that the wording I provided was to give clarity, he then reverted my change with a very aggressive edit summary [13]. He then changed something else in the article that I had just edited [14]. At that point it seemed that Lootbrewed was trying to get me into an edit war, and I decided to ignore him and continue editing.

The article itself was non-MOS compliant throughout with use of first names, present tense, and so on. I had time, so I decided to clean it up. Why Lootbrewed thinks this is a bad thing and shows ownership, I don't know. Perhaps it is because he is new, only has a little over 200 edits, and is not yet clear on how Wikipedia is edited and what normal editing looks like. From the nature of his edits, reverts, and comments, it does seem he has some mistaken notions about editing: that one cannot make a lot of edits in one day; that we are not allowed to change the edits of others; that editing here and commenting at article talk pages in the way of gaining consensus is a competition.

Back to the Duggar article: All of my edits were to improve the article, and that's exactly what they did. Lootbrewed, however, does seem to be hounding my edits and trying very hard to goad me into an argument (as evidenced by this comment he made at the Duggar article talk page) and get me in trouble (as evidenced by this post left at another editor's talk page). His comments regarding removing a reference and content he added is untrue: they weren't removed, they were put where they belonged: in the body of the article [15], [16].

I would appreciate it if Lootbrewed would stop hounding me, stop bringing up my block log, stop ignoring AGF and civility and stop doing his level best to see me sanctioned and/or blocked. I'm not interested in fighting with him. I don't think it's too much to ask to be allowed to edit in peace. That is hard to do, however, when you are editing an article and someone follows you there, seemingly to disrupt and antagonize. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. How many people can one editor accuse of hounding them, Winkelvi? You have been repeatedly told there is no grand conspiracy of editors out to "get" you. The irony is your record demonstrates an aberrant obsession of edit-warring, frivolous ANI reporting, and generally carrying-out vendettas against those who "cross" you by pummeling them to sheer exhaustion until you've made WP so unenjoyable they give-up and move-on. And despite a dozen editors commenting on this tendency to malcontent, you seem to be legitimately convinced that everyone is conspiring to "hound" you. Your behavior is so outlandishly unacceptable and seriously disruptive to the pleasant and efficient operations of WP that it's a shock you've only been blocked five times in your relatively short time here. At this point it really seems we're all just kidding ourselves if we think a sixth, seventh, or eighth block is going to produce a corrective miracle. BlueSalix (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Follow-up: Lootbrewed has now just reverted the content moved from the lede of the Duggar article and has started intentionally edit warring [17]. The edit summary gives an idea of his aggressive mindset that reveals a battleground mentality; "Restore content rmvd by Winkelvi using bogus edit summary "too wordy". Winkelvi, please stop editing this article! You have made approximately 70 edits today in a matter of just hours! You've also far exceeded the number of reverts allowed. Stop now.". If these issues cannot be resolved here - and I hope they are, because I HATE going to noticeboards -- I will have no choice but to take other measures to get the hounding to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, your disruptive editing history and battles with a countless number of editors speaks for itself. For the record, although my first edits to the Duggar were today, my interest in it isn't new at all. I've been following that article ever since the previous scandal was widely reported. And before you falsely accuse another editor of following you around, perhaps you should be reminded of the warning issued to you just yesterday. In terms of my editing at Josh Duggar today, Jehochman can easily look at the article's edit history to see who's done what. I doubt that will turn out well for you since I've made just a few edits (which you reverted), and you've made about 70, so far. I'm sorry, but you are, quite frankly, out of control with regard to your editing style. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 23:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)