Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:09, 7 January 2008

Archives
June 2006 – Mar 2007 Mar 2007 - August 6, 2007 August 7, 2007 - October 25, 2007 October 25, 2007 - the mysterious future This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Questions

Of course I am happy to answer your questions, no problem:

  1. Do you consider yourself to be an activist on behalf of people with Aspergers?

Yes and no, I certainly wasn't until this year, and I will not be again ASAP, simply because I abhor the "activism experience" in general. My involvement relates to one specific issue that I am happy to explain to you by email but not "on-wiki".

  2. Have you ever recruited other people who share your point of view to edit Misplaced Pages, specifically Asperger syndrome and any related articles?

Again, that is quite a tricky question, for me but in the answer you may come to understand AS a little better, at any rate as it applies to me. I have asked other people to contribute to the Asperger Syndrome article during this year, and I am sure that is no secret, simply because the deterioration in the neutrality of the article absolutely terrifies me on account of it's position on Google and the influence it has on people's thinking, and the way people with AS are perceived and treated as a result.

I asked them to contribute without even checking whether they shared "my point of view" (I don't think I have a very fully formed one) or not, because I feel that the deterioration in the neutrality of the article is subjective in origin, and, as a result, ANY objective opinion (including, for example, your own, if you wished to look into it) would serve to balance that. I would even have been happy with a reversion to the more balanced and objective 2006 FA. For me, in many ways, concepts like partiality and prejudice (even in my favor) are bad jokes that I don't really get. I am only interested in understanding and communicating objective reality, not in who's point of view trumps who's, if you can understand that? "Which team wins" is meaningless to me as long as the facts are valid.

However, while I did ask people to contribute, I don't think I actually succeeded in "recruiting" any, unless you know differently? :o)

Incidentally I never really DID edit the Asperger syndrome articles except to weigh in with consensus occasionally...believe it or not I feel too subjectively about AS to define it effectively in any capacity, and actually used a cut down version of the 2006 article to define AS for a national level submission here. I feel safer with the accuracy of an article into which many different people have put their perceptions, the are less likely to be errors and bias.

I have also been known to "buttonhole" any low flying shrink with an account here for comments on psych articles. Does that count?

  3. Do you operate a website about Asperger syndrome?

Only since the summer and only as a formality related to a specific issue here. I have a degree of technical control over a couple of others too, but that's mostly because nobody else can be bothered, you, know the way. I think you will find that I have not made any secret of this and stated on the AS talk pages in August or September (I'll see if I can find the diff, I was looking at it yesterday) that with great regret the neutrality of the article had deteriorated to the point where bI had to de-link it as a definition on those sites. I think you will find that I have never dropped a link to any website I owned or had control of on-Wiki, if you know differently please show me because I will be far more disgusted with me for doing that than anyone else ever will be.

Always feel free to ask any questions, as long as I am free to answer them.

Incidentally, I hope you won't mind terribly if I get justice too? But whether you believe it or not I really do deserve it.

--Zeraeph (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Justice for all! Jehochman 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll never quarrel with that sentiment, it's one of my personal favorites.--Zeraeph (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has accepted, it opens tomorrow, shall we shake hands and wish one another a Happy New Year? --Zeraeph (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I hope that my comments at User talk:Zeraeph did not imply that I considered the questions a "trap", and I unreservedly apologise if that was the impression given. My reasons for writing what I did was i) not knowing how Z's Aspergers manifests itself I felt that I should clarify that your requests were not binding (options not always being a concept that those on the Autistic Spectrum can internalise), and ii) um... not having the sense to check whether she had answered elsewhere. Since Z has chosen to answer, and I am confident in your ability to consider the information with due nuetrality, I consider my comments moot. Regards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• No apology needed! You are welcome to question my actions at any time, and I appreciate your feedback. Jehochman 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Goosecreek RFCU, IP based ban evasion?

You might want to look at my new comments on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek which are due to User talk:Lawrence Cohen#A question for you. Is this ban evasion and a range block situation? Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More of these "very dynamic" Sprint IPs that "leave no trail" and all have the same stance and position here. And more six forward slash IP supports. The whole situation is becoming a sockpuppet party on those pages even worse if this guy can change IPs at will. Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are limits to what can be done in fairness. But articles that these folks like to edit should be protected from anon ip edits. I think we also need a protection level that says you need -- say 150 edits or more in article space -- before you can edit some articles with that level of protection. This would go a long way to stopping socks and we could stop witch hunting. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reasonable evidence to believe these people are different. Most of the RFCU confirmed socks for the same IP all have history of working on the Free Republic article. That includes the IP of one of the worst trolls this site has apparently known, this Palatine character, who had that as his major problem. That IP, plus a host of others with the same language, tone and curious identical ```support``` language all arrive at once on the waterboarding talk page, at the same time, and all with the exact same stance? If not entirely sockpuppetry it's flagrant meatpuppetry. Either is a rules violation. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all' these unique human beings, all using the same ISP, all with matching political viewpoints, all with matching oddball habits of forming their ```support``` !votes, and all with basically the same language all arrived independent of each other, as soon as the "consensus" fight began to turn, and there were basically two people on the non-torture side of the debate? I've got a swell bridge for you too, that's only moderately used. Lawrence Cohen 19:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is coincidence. I do not think it is not coincidence. I do not consider it worthwhile to be concerned about. To me, consensus is not the count of the votes, but rather the weight of the votes. The reasoning. So I do not stress over such things. Some people find this very distracting. I do not. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it it is sockpuppetry and stacking the discussion, it's a major problem. No one editor is entitled to more weight in discussion than any other. It is a bannable offense. Lawrence Cohen 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. No problem with that. But its not a problem or a concern for me as an editor. I find it to be something that causes more stress than is needed. But perhaps it is because some people are so vigilant that I have never really been knowingly affected. On the other hand though, maybe some folks just stress over that stuff too much. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure if the abusive sockpuppetry was in opposition to what you see as a stance supported by policy (as it is in this case) you would feel different. Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it escaped your attention, but if you look you will see that I took very little to zero notice of them even though some people might suppose that they supported my position. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration?

Do you really think it has to go there FIRST? To me that is a bit extreme. What are the disruptive editing practices you see? The sockpuppets seem to be handled. If they really were sockpuppets, which I think is debatable but probable. Wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but does not past the smell test. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Middletown Connecticut

Hi there, I just received a harassing comment on my user talk page from the same user who keeps reverting edits in Middletown, Connecticut. What should I do? (besides delete it?) --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for two weeks. By then they will hopefully lose interest in bothering you. Jehochman 03:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much :) You may also want to take a look at 159.247.3.210, as it has also been a source of attacks from this user. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just received another harassing post to my talk page by same user under 129.133.124.203. Sorry this has turned into such a nighmare. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talk page for one week. This should prevent further disruption. Jehochman 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again; disruptive comments appearing on talk page of article Middletown, Connecticut , by 129.133.124.203 --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

LaruaWA11

Hey. I just noticed your comment. By all means, feel free to take over. Regards, El_C 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have the situation well in hand. Jehochman 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hello. Since you were the blocking admin for 129.133.124.199 (talk · contribs) due to his conduct at Middletown, Connecticut, I thought you might be interested in this post which would appear to be the same person evading the block. It is to be noted that rather than revert warring, he's discussing matters on the talk page. Of course the judgement call on what to do with him is all yours, oh mop laden one! :-) Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I invited the user to open an account and behave themselves. If they cause trouble they can be blocked again. Jehochman 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Again getting deletes in the Middletown article from the same user via 66.19.34.88. Again, sorry for the nightmare this has turned into. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Take that back; looks like it was an actual contribution to the talk page. Sorry, it's getting later here; I should probably bow out for now. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize if my disputes with Writer1400 have lead to any drama being forced upon you; Every minor disagreement with him have resulted in a major blowup of drama, and I'm sorry if you got caught in the middle of it. TheHYPO (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Let the user go in peace. Jehochman 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too!

Thanks for the kind thoughts. Its ok if we do not always agree, but we do not have to be disagreeable! I hope I am not. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

have a look

Hi Jehochman, could you have a look at this. I'm being accused of personally attacking User:Blackworm. I am disengaging awaiting a review of my actions - would you mind taking a look--Cailil 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought to ANI. I have mentioned your overview of my actions there--Cailil 14:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the section immediately below this one? Jehochman 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the above is here at WP:AN. I'm having a look at the below now--Cailil 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the original issue being rehashed by Blackworm, could you have a look at his post to my user-space here - if you would prefer I could ask a different sysop to overview (again), in case you are over worked or wish to recuse yourself--Cailil 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be out, so you may with to ask another if you need fast response. Jehochman 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Guy about it. He's busy so he may not be able to deal with it either, but it's not that urgent, it can wait till tomorrow or later--Cailil 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rape & NPOV

I am confused. You left a very ambiguous message saying that a contribution of mine appears to have been non-neutral and may have been removed. It has been removed, but you were not the one who removed it. Two questions:

1) How did this come to your attention?

and

2) How does the statement "the debate over whether or not biological factors influence the male decision to rape still causes great controversy, espescially between feminists and sociobiologists" convery a non-neutral POV? As far as I can tell, it acknowledges both sides of the argument but favors neither; which, to my knowledge, is the very definition of neutrality. The only other reason I can think of for removing the statement is if it is false, but that cannot be the case as the history of the rape page itself testifies to its veracity.

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MannaOfTheMessiah (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a third party who happened to notice your comment, I can say on the face of it that the sentence you quoted seems to assert that all Femanists and Sociobiologists hold the opinions you've attributed to them, or that they are more strongly opinionated than anyone else on the subject. I don't think that's a proper assertment. TheHYPO (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for human behavior is the primary distinction between feminism and sociobiology. Feminists subscribe to social constructionism, the belief that culture is the only influence upon human action. There is no feminist, that I know of, who objects to this belief. Sociobiologists, meanwhile, believe that biology influences behavior. These are foundational tenets of their belief systems, their adherents are the most strongly opinionated, and this diametric conflict is responsible for most of the edit wars on the Rape page. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, these edits look like you are pushing your personal opinions onto Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The pages Rape and Sociobiological theories of rape are proof that the statement is objective, germane, and neutral. I am not adding anything to Misplaced Pages that is not already there. If you still believe otherwise, please elaborate. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that many feminists do subscribe to social constructivist ideas, you are making a huge generalization MannaOfTheMessiah. There are a number of strands of feminism that deny this some ecofeminist and mother earth/earth goddess types believe in an essentialist idea of femininity. Even the postcolonial-feminist theorist, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak coined the term Strategic essentialism and has some beliefs in it. So in short MannaOfTheMessiah be more specific. If a feminist or socilologist holds a position name them - attribute the claim and reference it. Also as Jehochman points out you will need sources to add this material to WP and citing the wikipdia articles Rape and Sociobiological theories of rape wont be good enough unfortunately--Cailil 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Copying comments to RfC talk page

May I have your permission to copy the commments on my talk page to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden#Community input on the findings of fact? I would make clear where they came from, and invite further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted there because I did not want to extend any criticisms of your actions to other venues. I did post an explanation. Let me know if that is sufficient, but in principle anything I say on the record can be copied anywhere without limitation. Thank you for asking. Also, do you think we should ask somebody like Lar to clerk this RfC to help keep things in order? Jehochman 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it a bit longer. Maybe drop him a note now if you are worried. By the way, have you seen this? I was very pleased to see the contributions resume, but now I'm worried you might want to revisit some of the issues and resolve them (which is entirely up to you, of course). I vaguely remember an "enough already" comment you made in an edit summary, so maybe not? Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We exchanged emails and enough already is the right way to look at this. That he has returned cheers me up. Jehochman 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Varroa Destructor

This article is one I watch.

I would reverse this but given our recent interchange, I would expect you to consider it a sort of aggressive attack. So instead I will bring it to your attention.

I do not consider this removal to be a good thing. It did not look like advertising to me and it might be helpful to beekeepers doing research on how to affect this parasite. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I did look for references to this, and did not find any online. If you can find a reference, feel free to re-add the material but without the external link. Otherwise, this material appears to violate WP:EL and possibly WP:COI. It sticks out and looks like it was placed there to promote. Usefulness is not a criteria for inclusion; verifiability is. I've spent considerable time working at WP:COIN where I've seen a lot of cases like this one. Regards, Jehochman 12:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also do not like advertising on wikipedia in any form. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse's "evidence" at ArbCom Zeraeph et al

Hi. I would just like to say that the strong language (no, not swearing this time - passionate but still civil) that I used in my response to your comment is not directed at you but "the gallery". I want to be able to defend my reputation, and striking through will allow the accusations to be still seen. I'm late to bed as it is, so my considered reply to Mattisse will have to wait a little while. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it going

Have a look why? thx Igor Berger (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your comments

Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice. I'll definitely follow it, if there is no objection to it. I'd also like to say sorry for declining the coaching so early after the last RFA, I ultimately ended being coached by Rlevse, but I appreciated your thought nevertheless. Best regards, Rudget. 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You made a good choice with Rlevse. I've been quite busy, and I may not be the best coach because I tend to walk into minefield-type situations. Jehochman 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Blue Tie asked, "Do you really think you are helping matters with that approach? Think about it."

You relied, "Yes."

I reply, "No, you're not. You're taking sides, and backing it up with threats to use your administrative powers against the 'other side' while ignoring the same conduct by 'your side.' That's what Blue Tie is complaining about and he has a very valid point."

Please think about how oppressive this conduct is and, just as important, how it is perceived by people who disagree with your interpretations. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that I am acting as an ordinary editor. My observation that editors who turn an article into a battleground will be blocked is perfectly accurate. I am hopeful that editors will maintain decorum, and that no blocks will be necessary. Multiple administrators are lurking at the page, and blocks will be issued, but not by me, to any editor who disrupts the project. Jehochman 16:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)