There is a glorious discussion taking place on the Administrators Noticeboard.

Seems to be that everybody is a sock/meat/proxy/disciple-puppet of Wikipedia Review now. Awbrey, you may turn over the King of the MeatySocks crown to me this weekend. I'll be in the Detroit area, in fact!

Sure, the Wikipediots have correctly fingered a couple of my socks -- User:COI analyst was a really tough one for them to crack -- Hochman e-mailed me and I told him so right off the bat! These mysterious IP editors, though -- so not me, Wikipediots.

You know what I think? I think this is all coming back to bite Jehochman, because he had the nerve to suggest that I was affiliated with Orbitz, thanks to his "secret" evidence, which after I phoned him went "poof" and was retracted. That's a really cheap thing to do -- claim you have evidence proving something, then when the subject of your attack calls you on it, you fold like a little chicken.

Greg

There is a glorious discussion taking place on the Administrators Noticeboard.

Seems to be that everybody is a sock/meat/proxy/disciple-puppet of Wikipedia Review now. Awbrey, you may turn over the King of the MeatySocks crown to me this weekend. I'll be in the Detroit area, in fact!

Those IPs are not Wikipedia Review. Believe it or not Wikipedia Review has always been very upfront about his intentions, and the same goes for his socks - as Jehochman actually knows. COIAnalyst was Wikipedia Review (well duh) but the IPs are not. ViridaeTalk 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether the IPs are MyWikBiz or not MyWikiBuz, I've seen enough of these constant attacks from this Greg Koh character, and I'm going to do something about it. Hopefully that will be a relief to all of the people who are trying to build an encyclopedia from teh greound up. If I'm successful he won't be bothering us any more! - Onlytooth 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted; to Viridae) That's essentially the same argument Alkivar used to prop up Burntsauce: The IPs don't match...never mind the rest of the evidence. I should have taken a harder line on that last April: it would have saved the community a lot of trouble. This IP editor is an even more straightforward case: harassment. Maybe he's proxying for Wikipedia Review is not remotely a defense for harassment. DurovaCharge! 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again: Until he was blocked I don't think I saw any harassment. About his behavior since then, especially this last rant, I have nothing good to say; but I think the original block still remains dubious. Also, I don't think he's proxying for the COI chap in the Burntsauce/Alkivar manner, he seemed to have other concerns originally. Relata refero 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

* Viridae, what does, "as Jehochman actually knows," refer to? You and I have never discussed what I know about Wikipedia Review. Where did you get that information from? - Jehochman Talk 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

* Before Viridae answers, I believe Jehochman should explain why he accused Wikipedia Review of recently working with Orbitz in this area, but then backpedaled on the matter shortly after. The community looks forward to your explanation. Stoodwiped 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

* Finally a bit of respect! I am so tired of chintzy, throw-away IP socks. Now we have real sockpuppets with actual user IDs. See [87] and [88]. Charming. - Jehochman Talk 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
* Stoodwiped, please explain why you feel that Wikipedia owes trolls and banned editors any respect whatsoever? Corvus cornix 23:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stoodwiped can't reply here because someone already indeffed the account for being both. I'm interested in seeing Viridae's answer to Jehochman's question. DurovaCharge! 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly all I can say is "meh". Whoever that is, they have some very valid points about COI and Jonathan Hochman. Once again certain members of the admin ranks are totally unable to comprehend that a valid point might come from a source external to wikipedia.

Seems to be that everybody is a sock/meat/proxy/disciple-puppet of Wikipedia Review now. Awbrey, you may turn over the King of the MeatySocks crown to me this weekend. I'll be in the Detroit area, in fact!

There is a glorious discussion taking place on the Administrators Noticeboard.

The Bizarre, Bizarre Behavior of Sock-a-thon Hochman


And you'll be there, making a quick buck no doubt! See what her highness says about you …

QUOTE

It's Wikipedia Review: either the banned editor himself or someone who's proxying for him. Either way, a clear WP:SOCK policy violation. DurovaCharge! 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE

He was pulling the same thing a week and a half ago, and pretty much admitted his identity.[94] All standard Kohs MO: he's always been in it for the buck, so he attributes an unethical profit motive to anyone who upholds site policies and tells him no. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE

Out of respect for Jehochman's privacy I'm refraining from posting the diffs: this sock insists on referring to that editor by his surname rather than his username, and repeats Kohs's insinuation that Jehochman participtes at this website to make money (elsewhere Kohs makes that claim about me also). He repeatedly restored that disclosure and the claim despite repeated blanking of the IP's user talk, and quite obviously this is a sock rather than a new user. The question of whether this actually is Kohs or not is beside the point. Either is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLP and WP:POINT - the only distinction is which clause of the sockpuppet policy is being violated. He didn't stop until the IP's talk page was protected and as soon as a 3 hour block expired he went right back to disruption. So I implemented a routine reblock. DurovaCharge! 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All courtesy of the Bizarre Behavior from JeHochman Thread

Using the "She Doth Protest Too Crazily Much" principle: Three points:

1. Who is acting the proxy (sock, meatpuppet) for whom? I'm thinking JeHochman might have Durova's marionette-wielding handprints up his backside, that's what I think.
2. Notice the fact that the ranting was eventually disregarded. Miss D's losing her touch. i.e. Credibility. This is a *good* thing.
3. This woman is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. And I reference the logic meltdown in this part of her quote. Looney tune logic.

QUOTE

The question of whether this actually is Kohs or not is beside the point. Either is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLP and WP:POINT — the only distinction is which clause of the sockpuppet policy is being violated

Clearly, she's frantic in her efforts to attack Kohs, and/or anyone she delusionally suspects to be Kohs. That's fullstop bizarre. Why should she care so much about Kohs? Other than that she lied about him and printed it online to make herself famous by-proxy (which worked for a spell). At this point it is getting a bit old, and her behavior a bit transparent.

Another Question: When in the history of the United States has "making a buck" been a bad thing? Just wondering.

Wait a minute. I click the link, and now it's gone? They have even made this one disappear?

Greg

No, I am not selling my services as a Wikipedia administrator. The insinuation is offensive. Physchim, if you ever posed that question to me before I must not have noticed, because I certainly would have clarified it promptly. Please withdraw it. DurovaCharge! 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The archive should be the last black number in the appropriate archive box, though sometimes material is mysteriously lost in transit.

Jonny

Interesting that all of the IP's that you, or whoever was doing your dirty work seem to have been blocked as Tor Proxies huh?

Interesting that all of the IP's that you, or whoever was doing your dirty work seem to have been blocked as Tor Proxies huh?

No, Just a low tolerance for trolling, Greg.

And no, there's no groundswell of support for your position, Interesting that all of the IP's that you, or whoever was doing your dirty work seem to have been blocked as Tor Proxies huh?

SirFozzie, if you understand "trolling", then methinks you need to look closer to home for the biggest trolls to be found in this embroglio.

Greg

Fozzie,

Why does anyone who comments on (or makes fun of) Durova (or COI, or hypocrisy) have to be Greg?

Just wondering.

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Post by a banned user
|-
| Administrator ABC123 is (blah, blah slanderous remarks). - XYZ456
: Hi, this is a sock puppet of banned user XYZ123, please ignore per [[WP:DENY]]. - ABC123
|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Expand for long anonymous rant of dubious usefulness
|-
|
My complaint about Jehochman — I intend to serve as a facilitator who will help you draw your own conclusions about Jehochman. That is, I'll be your "guide on the side", not a "sage on the stage". With my assistance, you'll soon gain a deep understanding of how there are no easy solutions for dealing with vitriolic hypochondriacs (with "easy" being defined as a solution that will not muzzle Jehochman's critics). To get immediately to the point, even when the facts don't fit, Jehochman sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he holds a universal license that allows him to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. I disagree both with his point and with the way he makes it, yes. But unlike him, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if — and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" — Jehochman were not actually responsible for trying to do away with intellectual honesty, then I'd stop saying that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Jehochman. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that on a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "Ageism is an unrestrained whore, cloaking herself as social virtue and brotherly love." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

Jehochman's thesis is that he is entitled to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. That's thoroughly huffy, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that I've never bothered Jehochman. Yet Jehochman wants to sensationalize all of the issues. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? Thanks to Jehochman, splenetic liars and cheats can now freely torment, harry, and persecute anyone who crosses Jehochman's path. Only a true-blue prolix authoritarian or one who is completely clueless about isolationism could claim otherwise.

It strikes me as amusing that Jehochman complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. He demands obeisance from his peons. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Jehochman forces them to seek temporary tactical alliances with wily rumormongers in order to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. No one can deny that his genius for crime, squalor, and disorder has once again asserted itself, yet you won't find many of his loyalists who will openly admit that they favor Jehochman's schemes to turn over our country to sick spongers. In fact, their complaints are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that thanks to Jehochman we're all in a free fall into a pit of feudalism. But you knew that already. So let me add that if one believes statements like, "Nepotism is the key to world peace," one is, in effect, supporting distasteful ochlocrats. I shall not argue that Jehochman's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to don the mantel of elitism and irritate an incredible number of people. Read them and see for yourself.

I frequently wish to tell Jehochman that being shielded from the consequences of his bad judgment and bad behavior has made him careless. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. To be honest, if I didn't think he would turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency, I wouldn't say that he knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.

It's easy for us to shake our heads at Jehochman's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of supercilious inerudite-types. It's easy for us to say, "Jehochman's harebrained attempts to hasten the destruction of our civilization are well-nigh unforgivable." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because he says it is within his legal right to enthrone falsehood in the very center of human thought. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, either Jehochman has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Jehochman. The memo spells out his plans to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help him make people weak and dependent. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that Jehochman has a massive superiority complex. In view of that, it is not surprising that it is cowardice on Jehochman's part to equip sexist, daft casuists with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that his notions are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us in the blink of an eye. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Jehochman extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice.

Without a doubt, however, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Jehochman's plans to abet a resurgence of polyloquent irreligionism. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. It is imperative that we inform such people that Jehochman doesn't want us to know about his plans to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. Otherwise, we might do something about that. I and Jehochman part company when it comes to the issue of fascism. He feels that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion, while I maintain that implying that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication is no different from implying that his pestilential, spleeny faction is a benign and charitable agency. Both statements are ludicrous. If one needs a sign that he is headlong, then consider that the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how foul-mouthed and frightful he has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how he seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, unreasonable brutal-types. We'd all be in grave danger if Jehochman continued to engage in his sophomoric, impudent behavior. If you looked up "ill-bred" in the dictionary, you'd probably see his picture.

By its very nature, classism finds its adherents among bitter harijans like Jehochman. In that context, one could say that Jehochman wants all of us to believe that he never engages in aberrent, uppity, or mendacious politics. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.

It behooves us to remember that it is hardly surprising that Jehochman wants to pull the levers of plagiarism and oil the gears of sensationalism. After all, this is the same patronizing poseur whose covinous prattle informed us that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. On the surface, it would seem merely that when the war against reason is backed by a large cadre of unenlightened dole-sucking parasites, the results are even more moonstruck. But the truth is that I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, in a recent essay, he stated that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of diabolism. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of Jehochman". In it, I chronicle all of Jehochman's rejoinders, from the crafty to the piteous, and conclude that Jehochman's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, his criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in Jehochman's "I think … I believe … I feel" game.

Jehochman keeps saying that it's okay if his fairy tales initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. For some reason, Jehochman's compeers actually believe this nonsense. I wish that some of his janissaries would ask themselves, "Why am I helping him ruin people's lives?" This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to impale us on the pike of absenteeism.

Don't get me wrong; I'm sick of Jehochman sticking his proboscis into everyone else's business. But there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about Jehochman's memoirs. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must examine the social and cultural conditions that revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. Let me quote to you from the words of my attorney: "If the country were overrun by abusive, yawping meanies, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives — stares from sales clerks, taxis that don't stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police." Make no mistake about it, he has two imperatives. The first is to paint people of different races and cultures as raucous alien forces undermining the coherent national will. The second imperative is to unleash an unparalleled wave of charlatanism. Jehochman has been trying for some time to sell the public on an exclusionism-based government. His sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: Women are spare parts in the social repertoire — mere optional extras. The emotional argument: If he kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that Jehochman's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is dirty, because it leaves no room for compromise. In short, Jehochman has flirted with academicism and some of the more exotic forms of factionalism. What you really need to do to be convinced of that, however, is to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough facts to get you started. Just write to me. —[[User:70.152.214.190|70.152.214.190]] 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Huhh!? [[User:Bare In Mind|Bare In Mind]] 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
|}

Somewhere in there we need "Verily and forsooth!" followed by Alarums and Excursions.