Hi, maybe you could only post this to an/I

"About filing the request on meta.It states Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed. So according to this description, it looks as I submitted it in the right place. I also provided on wiki differences for every statement I made. Thanks -- Mbz1 02:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

RFD tagEdit

Once again and for the last time: a RFC on meta will not be deleted. Remember 3RR. --WizardOfOz talk 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If I am wrong, what harm is there in letting the discussion reach it's natural conclusion? You aren't a dictator. Stop acting like one. Jehochman 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not real active here, is this really acceptable, to bully users like this, and to close an active discussion and all the other crap that is going on here? If we acted like this as admins at en, we'd be in deep shit by now, but it seems like nobody cares here. Beeblebrox 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong. If there are three or four sysops of this project telling you that there is no deletion of a RfC (Micki, me, Herby and now Nemo), then you can be sure that you are wrong. --WizardOfOz talk 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you let the discussion continue? What is your rush to protected the banned editor who is harassing our en-wiki user? I think you ought to resign immediately. Your behavior is disgraceful. Jehochman 20:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I don´t even care about banned user. I was the person who informed Gwen. The only thing I care are the policies and guidelines of this project. You can discuss it where ever you want, but it will not be deleted. --WizardOfOz talk 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You should care about a banned user who is on your site using your pages to pursue a campaign of harassment that could have an impact on a real live person. Jehochman 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No I don´t. He is not banned here. And once more, this is not enwiki. --WizardOfOz talk 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Wizard:I wasn't talking to you, you abusive dick. If I'm so wrong, why aren't I blocked as you promised? Beeblebrox 20:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments entirely. Jehochman 20:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Cut out the personal attacks, please. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing personal about that remark. It is a generic statement of frustration at the very poor cooperation evidenced by the sysops here. I can assure you that if you had a problem on en-wiki and came to us for help, we would be much more accommodating. Jehochman 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent editEdit

You might want to check those diffs you just added to your comments at User talk:Nemo bis. One doesn't seem to be relevant. CIreland 22:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I will. Thank you for the tip. Lots of buffers. Sometimes paste the wrong thing. Jehochman 22:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please defuse, not inflameEdit

Mate, you are going off the deep end. Your approach is not leading to a resolution, it is just causing conflict with people getting bruised, and that is good for nobody. Can I ask that you put on your administrator-type hat and face, and reflect that is not how we would want people to work through a problem. We indicate "Breath, step back and consider, and practice giving the courtesy that you would expect to receive". You know that admin tools are pretty blunt, not nuanced and most of us don't like using them, however, there comes a point. billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I think you lot have all gone off the deep end. What makes you think you are competent to host an RFC about a dispute on en-wiki? We have a well defined RFC process with rules designed to protect the accused. We have an arbitration committee. This dispute already went through that whole process. A few banned users come here and for chuckles create an attack page, and you lot defend them tooth and nail. You're a very odd lot, and I hope you've learned what a stupid thing you've done and correct it immediately. This conflict will continue so long as that page exists. I had requested deletion and some fool prevented the discussion from reaching a consensus. Why don't you go lecture them instead of me. Thank you very much. Next time you want to talk to me, don't be so patronizing and you'll get a warmer reception. Bye. Jehochman 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Dude back, umm, I had no intention to patronise you, if it came across that way, I apologise, I was asking for you to take time for reflection. Apart from that, you haven't done your research. I am also an enwiki admin, and you will see in the early commentary of the RfC that I have clearly said that this is an enwiki only issue, and I did not see that this should progress at meta. I also asked for someone from the ArbCom to clearly state that position so that it had been addressed. At that point, as I have an enwiki hat I have either a vested interest or a conflict of interest (of which you are an advocate at enWP), so I have to follow the practice and not over edit. Post that, your use of words and your behaviour are not here befitting the expressed desires of enWP admins and if you reflect on your RfA, then match up your words and desires then, and your words here, I think that you will see a discrepancy.

There are rules to be followed here, and just like at enWP, processes to change rules. billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple question. How do I get that page deleted? My specialty over the years has been dealing with the very worst and most troublesome editors on en-wiki. Look at my arbitration list linked from my user page and you'll see the cases I filed or participated in. This RFC was a first, and it should be the last. We don't want banned users coming here to use this site like another Wikipedia Review. Meta is not for hosting attack pages. Jehochman 03:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the RfD is the appropriate place, I have expressed my opinion, hopefully clearly, and the clairty of our argument should win through as the reasons for retention are not expressed. Unfortunately this RfC isn't the first, and it won't be the last. We can tighten the process, then you will find that the discussions go offwiki into other sites and there is no ability to manage or deal with the more slanderous commentary. For me this becomes making sure that each wiki has the best in-house process, be seen to give natural justice, to give procedural fairness, and have the ability to justify their decision-making. Agree that Meta is not the place for hosting attack pages, and getting a better process for that is evident from the last few days. I do see that there has been an attempt to start that process. I think that the maxim of "people who defend themselves in court have an idiot for a lawyer" indicates that prosecutorial role probably suffers from the same sort of "perception blindness". billinghurst sDrewth 03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I would very much like the discussions to go off site. This is an official WMF site. As such things here carry a lot more weight. I don't care what people say on Wikipedia Review or Encyclopedia Dramatica. If any more RFCs turn up about matters that are exclusively en-wiki, I will do my best to stop them. En-wiki has standards for RFCs. Those standards are not enforced here, and this is the wrong venue. Dear Meta, please don't facilitate disruptive users playing any more such games. Jehochman 12:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jehochman, don't worry! I know what value to give to RfCs and complaints of blocked users, you should be able to see it in my history. And I also love, although she always ill-treats me so much, while I do my best to protect her and bear the consequences of her choices, so I assure you that you don't need to protect her from me. Yours affectionately, Meta-Wiki 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemo bis (talk)

What's the point?Edit

of asking questions to which you know the answer? Besides the user left meta. I'd suggest you to self-revert.--Mbz1 15:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not want to jump to any conclusions. So I asked. No harm in a simple question. Anyhow, would you please agree to stop making complaints on Meta about En-Wikipedia matters. You may submit any valid complaints via email to ArbCom or Ellen of the Roads. She seems interested in hearing about them. I'd love to close the dispute on this wiki and let the Metapedians get on in peace. Jehochman 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear! What about closing the RfD then? :) Nemo 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
As it is running about a 3:1 clip in favor of deletion, a closure and a finding to that effect would be quite proper. Tarc 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. The work is just about done here, assuming no surprises. Jehochman 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
WAYWARD COMMENT: Yes, will soon be able to get back to important humor-tagging work on en. :-) Proofreader77 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A point of misunderstandingEdit

Hello, jeh. You write: "There seems to be a dangerous idea here among some admins that Meta can handle dispute resolution for en-wiki."

I have not seen that idea expressed anywhere. That is not what RfCs are used for here. There are few user RfCs, as you note, and such pages are more generally truly requests for people to comment - with no necessary implications about the resulting impact on existing resolutions. Some RfCs include specific text of a proposed policy; rare user RfCs request specific all-projects sanctions like global bans.
Allowing a new RfC to stand does not imply any desire, or implied capacity, to deal with dispute resolution on a local wiki. Indeed meta policy and practice would generally prohibit any such outcome.
There are good reasons to delete the page in question, but in general a non-attacking page that describes a process on another wiki, is a fine source for discussion here -- even if that other wiki has effective processes and has carried them to the logical conclusion. (The resulting discussion should be about the processes themselves, rather than any specific disputes.) SJ talk | translate   14:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We will see what happens. Jehochman 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

18 USC 2257 complianceEdit

Jehochman, FYI, last year I asked Philippe Beaudette to look into issues around 2257 compliance, and one of the Foundation's legal interns drew up this document in Meta:

Note that according to the legislation, every page using such media should itself include an 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, as far as I recall. So it's not just a matter for Commons, but also for any other projects that use media of this type. I'm glad you brought it up. Cheers, Andreas JN466 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations Made on User_talk:FramEdit

Dear Jehochman,

We have been made aware of a rather serious allegation associated with an anonymous user, that casts our public and political organisation in a negative light. We are a public sector institution that does all it can to help address inequalities in both our work place and the locality we serve. We have no interest in the trivialities of the social dispute between the user behind the IP, yourself and Fram, but we do politely request that the allegation section be deleted. We don’t see this section as being significant to you or Fram, or the disciplinary procedures he is currently facing on this internet forum. But it could be significant to us as an organisation; as you yourself point out, comments can be attributed to real people, in real life, with real life consequences. That includes serious allegations such as these, born from what appears to be a rather harmless exchange of views. Our investigation shows that the allegation is based upon the use of an unfortunate but comparatively innocuous term “angry white men”. The allegation left intact with the ‘offending’ comment removed, could mislead readers to believe that (subjectively) worse was stated against groups who are far more subject to real discrimination, and this in turn could harm our organisation and our ability to help people in need. While the term was obviously used discourteously, it was clearly utilised as a synonym for those in the position of power and is not commonly interpreted as “sexist” against men, nor “racist” against white people, or any people. We have politely approached Fram to remove the section but he has met us with unpleasantness. It would be seen as a courtesy if you, as the author of the allegation and section, could remove it and trust that any comments made by our employees or residents without our consent are not representative of our organisation or locality as a whole. Thank you, Jerochman. I hope we have better luck with you and this can just be simply nipped in the bud here and now.

If the offensive comment has been removed, then I will remove my response to it, as no longer needed. Jehochman (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jechoman, as far as we can see the comment was already removed before you made the unsubstantiated allegation. Thank you for removing it. All the best.