Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:46, 30 January 2009

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please leave a new message. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

User:Kernow blocking

{{collapse bottom}}

Hi Jehochman. I've been looking at {{collapse bottom}}, which we are using at WP:SPI. At the moment, there is a bit of a problem with it in that the template must be on its own line. If it isn't, this happens:

We've got a working workaround (as it were!) for SPI, but maybe you can have a look at it as a general problem...

Thanks!

] 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I added some blank lines to the template. That seems to have cleared up the problem. Jehochman 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doctor_of_Chiropractic

Since you commented earlier, could you give some feedback on the current discussion about a topic ban of User:Levine2112? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I hope you might give me your opinion on something. I also left pretty much the same message with Abd... because of crossing paths with him last time here and being impressed with a comment he made. I am not a drama fan... and am not trying to be disruptive or be a problem editor. I have been in a minor revert war with user http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rtol - He is not friendly... has called me names a couple of times... may have a conflict of interest... because he is a writer on the subject... in the sense that he has precluded information that is connected (in my opinion)... hence narrowing the perspective of the subject in a way to make the understanding of the term less expansive in my opinion. He does not leave explanations of his edits (edit summaries). He does not sign his user name at the discussion page in the normal way. He has accused me of being anon. for some reason even though I leave reasons why I edit and always sign my comments... - Do you think I should try to keep making what I think are constructive changes to the page... or do you think I should back off and just stay away from it?

It seems to me like this person is doing a lot of things against guidelines... and it seems to me like the improvements that I think I am making are being reverted out of some kind of anger that he thinks maybe I am someone he somehow knows... or at least he implies that on the talk page. I do not know the guy from Adam... and edit the article because of interests only... so ... maybe you could give me your opinion or even interact if you care to, after looking at the Energy economics discussion page... and article. The Sustainability page is going fine now by the way. skip sievert (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

COI is narrowly defined to be a person writing about something closely connected, like themselves or their employer. A writer on a topic probably doesn't have a conflict. If the editor is being rude or just non-collegial, you should file a request at WP:WQA with multiple, fresh diffs. Also, don't edit war. It takes two to have a fight. Jehochman 13:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, written prior to seeing above comment from Jehochman) I'm on it, Jehochman. Both involved editors here seem to have misunderstood a few matters. I'm fairly confident that this can be straightened out without damage to the project or either editor, assuming that both of them are responsive. But to answer Skip's question, above, yes, Skip, you should back off and not make edits to the article that you expect to be controversial, but patiently seek consensus. That doesn't necessarily mean "staying away." My very quick judgment is that you are right in that thermoeconomics is related to energy economics, but Rtol is right in that adding as much material as you have added imbalances the article, and the separate article properly covers it. However, it won't be my opinion that will decide the dispute, it will be a consensus of editors. Rtol errs when he asserts a problem with your lack of credentials in the field, you err when you fail to respect that he's apparently an expert in the very topic of energy economics. I've also seen Skip assert incivility, in this dispute, when I don't read incivility in the comment he was responding to. So, yes, back off. Let's take it one step at a time. That you asked for help is excellent. If the situation had continued, both of you could have been blocked for edit warring. Rtol also asked for help at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#energy economics. I'll let you know if admin assistance is needed; I doubt it will be necessary. --Abd (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Rtol is apparently an editor of the journal, Energy Economics.. As such, he is likely a leading expert on the topic of the article. Like any writer, he may need proper editing to meet the publisher's expectations! I'd agree that he doesn't have a formal COI, necessarily, except when it comes to citing the journal, perhaps. Rather, here, he is participating as an expert in the field of the article. Such experts often make serious errors regarding WP policy and guidelines, and we should treat the situation with special care, because the participation of such people is particularly valuable, even necessary. Thus our intervention should be to enhance cooperation and collegiality and civility. Experts, in my opinion, should properly behave almost as if they have a COI; but, really, the restraint that an expert should show is the same as is expected of all editors: don't edit war, seek consensus, assume good faith, and all the rest. Skip did an excellent thing by seeking help, and so did Rtol. Sometimes, in situations like this, an admin pops in and makes a snap judgment, blocks somebody, and turns a resolvable situation into an ugly one. As you may know, Jehochman, I'm an inclusionist, but inclusion does not preclude categorization, and I see proper categorization of knowledge as essential to any encyclopedia, it is far more important than inclusion/exclusion. We don't improve the project by blocking editors, generally, nor by removing reliable content, but, of course, intransigent editors who cannot remain civil and follow behavioral guidelines must, for the protection of the project, sometimes be blocked. I'd rather try to integrate them, though, which means being welcoming rather than severe. Too often, warnings are simply harsh and seen as hostile by the warned editor. Common example: editor A is edit warring with editor B. Editor B has been uncivil to editor A and perhaps editor A has returned the favor. Editor B warns editor A for edit warring. Editor A sees this as a tactic to win an edit war, which it might well be. So editor A, being a normal human being who resists being coerced, reverts editor B again. Editor B, the one more familiar with WP procedures, then files a 3RR report and editor A is more or less automatically blocked. Editor A, particularly if editor A is an expert, is then convinced that Misplaced Pages is unfair and unreliable. My solution: discount warnings from involved editors, just as we disallow involved administrators from issuing blocks. Warnings should be sympathetically issued by uninvolved editors who, as deeply as possible, assume good faith, and simply attempt to guide a warned editor into functional behavior. If there is bad faith, it will eventually show. --Abd (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Removing_administrator_rights/Proposal

J;
I'm going to be trying to breath new life into an old dog, or some similarly mixed metaphor. In particular starting with a proposal like Misplaced Pages:Administrator_recall#Process_1_Mk_II: Specific in the process, but with room for debate on the details. Thoughts?
brenneman 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the current consensus is that desysoppings are not so common that ArbCom is prepared to deal with each of them. I'd like to see ArbCom adopt a standard that loss of trust is sufficient grounds for desysopping, rather than the current higher burden of they call abuse of tools. It should be obvious that anyone in a position of trust must resign when they have lost trust. An RFC is the correct tool for determining what the community thinks about a user that has any sort of ops. If an RFC shows a loss of trust, then ArbCom should be prepared to act, either by motion, or by full case if the matter bears closer scrutiny. Perhaps this change is so close to what already exists, de facto, that we could just edit the relevant policies to say so and be done with the matter. Jehochman 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

About your comment in JzG's RfAr

. You'd be correct that this would be the relevant policy if there were clear evidence of meat puppetry. I'm quite familiar with the situation, having started to investigate it, as you know, in response to JzG's out-of-process blacklisting, using admin tools while clearly involved in the relevant article.

Rothwell and Pcarbonn are entirely independent, it would be astonishing to me if Rothwell were "being used to circumvent a topic ban." Pcarbonn appears to be entirely observing the ban. I even pointed out that, even though banned, he could suggest edits to another editor, off-wiki or on, and if the other editor were willing to take responsibility for them as if they were his own idea, the editor could make the edit; if the edit was inappropriate, the editor who makes the edit would be responsible, and only inappropriate solicitation (say of a naive editor) would make this meat puppetry. Pcarbonn didn't take me up on the implied offer. He's burned out, I think. Wouldn't you be?

Pcarbonn was an editor very familiar with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and, to my review, quite concerned with NPOV and balance. I think he got a raw deal at Arbitration, but that's not really relevant here. (The evidence, examined shallowly, looks like he was fighting an improper "battle," but a deeper examination seems to me to show that he was "battling" for NPOV as he saw it, and he was faced with other editors, notably ScienceApologist, but also, from time to time, JzG, who were battling even more strongly, with less regard for guidelines and policy.)

JzG took this to ArbComm. I find it remarkable that he didn't notify me or mention me, when the objection to his block of Rothwell came from me. I hadn't decided to escalate or how to escalate, but I'd have been far, far from taking this to ArbComm. I was not treating it like an emergency. GoRight became aware of the situation and added his opinion. Two users disagree with an admin, on his Talk page, and the admin takes the matter to ArbComm? Isn't this a tad premature? What did I do when you and I disagreed? Drag you before AN? File an RfC? You know what I did, and the project, I'd say, is better for it, we cooperate. Thanks, once again, for listening and responding with an open mind. Maybe we should have some tea more often. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read my remarks with strict logic. I explained criteria. I did not take a position on whether the criteria applied to any specific case. A report to WP:SSP would be the obvious first step, followed by any necessary block being applied by an uninvolved admin. Jehochman 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. I did read your remarks carefully. Your statement of policy was correct, but it was actually irrelevant. What you further say is appropriate is also quite correct. However, the problem here is really JzG, not Rothwell. What I've now documented is that JzG has been acting, not just once, but in a number of cases in this narrow area, where he's involved, using his admin tools to favor his position. I linked it from my RfAr comment, but you can see it directly at User:Abd/JzG. A report to WP:SSP would go nowhere, there is no sock puppetry or meat puppetry; a coincidence of POV is far from establishing it. JzG actually blocked IP that was almost certainly not Rothwell, claiming it was Rothwell, however, Rothwell always signs his edits, the blocked IP doesn't ever do it. Rothwell's IP locates to Atlanta (all that I've looked at), the blocked IP is Texas. So, it appears, if you express in Talk a pro-cold fusion POV, you can now be banned under the Pcarbonn ban. This isn't just bad, it's awful.

Rothwell is an easy target, he's uncivil, and he's defiant. But he's been abused, insulted, blocked, blacklisted, all of it improperly so far, with the Misplaced Pages community tolerating it. I'd be uncivil too, if I were in his shoes! He's one of the world's foremost experts on the overall topic of cold fusion. (Not "scientists," he's a writer and editor; he edits conference proceedings in the field, and his web site is the best bibliography and archive on the topic in existence, apparently. And, contrary to the claims, it's not warped, the bibliography appears to be as complete as he could make it; and he claims that he will host any article where he can get permission. Sure, he's opinionated, he probably wouldn't have become the expert if not for his opinion! He's COI and an SPA and, as such, he properly shouldn't edit the articles, but make suggestions in Talk. And that's what he's been doing. Look, JzG throws up a mountain of arguments, but most of them are actually false or highly misleading. For example, the "linkspamming." Read the guideline on linkspam, what Rothwell does simply doesn't match it. He adds his domain name to his signature, "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org," which is disapproved, but, for starters, it's not a link and the blacklist doesn't prevent it. What the blacklist prevents is actual links, and this is usually confined to dealing with links spammed to articles, and Rothwell doesn't edit articles. The blacklist is not intended as a method of controlling article content by preventing legitimate editors from linking to sites that are allegedly fringe. The guidelines for the blacklist have been and are being blatantly violated. It is truly a can of worms, Jehochman. JzG argued for the topic ban, then decided it, then blocked Rothwell for a month, then blacklisted Rothwell's web site and made edits to articles that could not then be reverted, removing lenr-canr.org and another CF related site, newenergytimes.com. You know, they published Pcarbonn's article. No linkspamming was even asserted for them. The links were stable, had apparently been accepted by consensus. JzG, I think, had tried to remove similar links before and his position hadn't been sustained, so he figured out how to make it stick: make it impossible to revert him. Nice trick, eh? --Abd (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Thank you for your opinion. Please feel free to note my comments at WT:SPI. - jc37 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/SemBubenny/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/SemBubenny/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)