Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:03, 21 October 2014

Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently.

This page needs more maintenance tags. January 2014. Please don't slap orange-box maintenance tags on articles. Time is better spent fixing them. If you don't have time to fix a problem, please use the article talk page to leave comments. Thank you.

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

A thing I forgot to say

Hello Jehochman. I noticed a recent edit from you and remembered something I once meant to tell you, but had not. You may remember a related discussion on Jimbo's TP where I entered the discussion: light on background and facts. I spoke to you with the negative sentiments of bias alone. All the while, as I opined, my conscious nagged at me, and conflicted my thoughts. I knew I had seen your user name many times, and I was pretty sure I was always favorably impressed.

Within a month to six weeks after we interacted on Jimbo's TP, I saw your involvement in a few "marquee discussions". Without equivocation, you are a "first class" administrator; one that I fully support. I am glad that you handled the ridicule of our discussion with such courage, and calm strength. Regarding the day on Jimbo's page, when I spoke to you with both knees jerking, I apologize, and stand corrected. Sincerely—John Cline (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I'll admit that had I forgotten about that conversation, but please don't feel sorry, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Jehochman 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman. My apology is not for disagreeing, it is for being disagreeable. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon 12:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Talk:Evolution

Please be aware that the boilerplates at the top of Talk:Evolution clearly state that the talkpage is for discussions about improving the article only, and under no circumstances are editors to be permitted to misuse and abuse the talkpage as a soapbox or a forum thread from which to demand that the article be rewritten into religiously inspired anti-science propaganda, as per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM. It's blatantly obvious that User Frank M Martin was not editing in good faith as, in his original screed and only edit, he was using an Appeal to the Majority fallacy to claim that evolution is false because more people allegedly believe in Creationism than in evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This might be true, but a heavy handed response will encourage more Battles. Jehochman 17:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Leaving nonsense like that on the talk page will only encourage more creationist trolling. We have other articles about creationist views on evolution but this article is purely about the science. Never feed the trolls.Charles (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A gentle approach is commendable, but, unfortunately, I've found the opposite approach more effective: these particular editors, both the misguided and the Saboteurs For Jesus, are determined to use Misplaced Pages talkpages as a platform to both browbeat other editors into agreeing with them as well as to disseminate anti-science propaganda. I've found out firsthand that such editors are immune to subtle hints, and take all attempts at gentleness as an open invitation to continue their unconstructive editing. The most effective way to prevent talkpages from being misused as an ideological battleground is to delete such threads the moment they pop up, otherwise, these editors will never get the hint.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because they are trying to have an ideological battle does not mean you should join the battle because you are right. No, you should reject battle tactics. Leave their stupid comments in place and the replies. I don't like that you support the removal of my comment. Are you suggesting that I'm a troll? Jehochman 19:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested you are a troll.Charles (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Charles was saying "Don't feed the trolls." Furthermore, leaving the creationist and anti-science trolls' comments and the replies in place only encourages other editors to further ignore the boilerplate warnings that clearly state how the talkpages are for discussing improvements to the articles, and are not for forum threads and soapboxes, what with no consequences, and all.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sprinkler Court

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You did the correct move on User:Sprinkler Court. Read this article from Buzfeed about him: GOP Opposition Research Firm Is Editing Democratic Politicians’ Misplaced Pages Pages. -- Alexf 21:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Good call on that, although their reaction that their edits are not disruptive should produce some interesting results down the road. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently he or the firm he works for is going to appeal his block. The firm's executive director said, "We've consulted long-time Misplaced Pages editors, don't believe the blocking will stand, and are going to appeal." GOP firm plans appeal after researcher is blocked by Misplaced Pages Jinkinson talk to me 23:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

He's welcome to appeal by placing a note on his talk page. Anybody can copy it to WP:ANI for a full community discussion. Jehochman 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"I have never been paid to make any edits to any pages. America Rising, the firm that I work for, is not paid by its clients to make edits to Misplaced Pages. It's not part of our job description. I am just genuinely interested in politics and current events." He's just a curious citizen, yet the executive directory of his advocacy firm is going to appeal his block after consulting "long-time Misplaced Pages editors". Second Quantization (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ROPE. Soon enough this matter will resolve itself one way or the other. Jehochman 17:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Case opened

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rfcu

Msnicki and I certified it. Please restore. NE Ent 01:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, I was just coming to explain to you in detail why I deleted it. And no, it was not properly certified because your diffs of alleged attempt at dispute resolution were from 2012. You can't point back two years and start an RFC now. Msnicki's diffs were from 2014 and did not appear to be the same dispute. If you want to have an RFC/U you need to make sure you follow the minimum requirements. I have more thoughts on the matter and would be happy to discuss this with you, and if necessary, recover any deleted content which you don't have a copy of in case you want to try again. Jehochman 01:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is about General user conduct, not simply the specific instance. There is no time requirement in the requirements about how long before an RFC/U the discussion had to take place for it to be valid. NE Ent 01:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read this section carefully Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Minimum_requirements and tell me how your discussion in 2012 and Msnicki's discussion in 2014 could relate to "the same dispute". Could you give me a recent and perhaps egregious example of behavior? If we can find two users who discussed that incident, it would form a proper basis for an RFC/U. Once you've got two people disputing the same issue with the subject, the past pattern of behavior can be presented to show that it's not an isolated incident. I am definitely not saying you can't have an RFC/U, but you need to follow the requirements, and I could help if you wish. Jehochman 01:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation is reasonable. The issue is not a specific instance but the long term pattern of behavior. In any event, I'm out of wiki time for awhile, and I'll have to address it when I get more time. NE Ent 02:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In any event, I'd like to help you resolve your concerns about that user. When you get time, if you point me to a recent issue with them that concerns you, I will investigate. Please don't look upon me as an adversary; I'm open to persuasion. Jehochman 02:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The RFC/U that you just sent to the black hole had several recent examples of problematic behavior. Any reason why you can't just look at those? - MrX 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've left notices for Msnicki and DangerousPanda about this discussion and invited them to join us here. Jehochman 01:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• If Jehochman is willing to mediate, an informal discussion here on neutral ground would be an excellent idea. Here or a subpage of this talk page. No one is claiming DP is perfect, but it is my opinion that trying to find common ground off the boards is a better first step. This is also in line with the idea of solving problems at the lowest possible level. If it doesn't work, the RFC/U can be restarted. Like Jehochman, I'm happy to userfy the old page at that time if needed. Dennis 2¢ 02:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• One of the many reasons why RFC/U is such a horribly useless process is because of the presumption that all user conduct issues orbit around a single dispute. I agree with NE ENT that there is a long term pattern of behavior. Many editors, including myself, have confronted DP about specific issues. Are we so rule-bound that we require that two editors to actually open a discussion of DPs talk page about the entirety of his long term behavior and how it doesn't comport with WP:ADMIN? - MrX 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: May I supply the required diff? In that same incident I described regarding DP's indefinite block of Barney, NE Ent tried to explain to DP why DP's initial response to me was improper. Here is the exchange. I believe his "Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you" and edit remark, "laughable" is WP:INCIVIL and a violation of WP:IUC and satisfies the letter of our guidelines in the same spirit as your insistence on applying the letter of our guidelines.

• The policy says Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.. What Msnicki got was That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. ... Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying. I do not consider such discourse "calm and rational," and, as an editor in good standing, Msnicki deserves better. Administrator conduct states Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. ...Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. NE Ent 19:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was quite obviously nothing wrong with that statement - Msnicki even dropped by my talkpage to discuss it because she too read something into it that was obviously not there. It was by no means uncivil, contained no personal attacks (indeed, it commented on CONTENT, and not the CONTRIBUTOR), but wholly questioned the LOGIC of her paragraph and personal attacks against me that by her own admission, was based on not-reading the entire situation that led to BtBB's sanctions. Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you the panda ₯’ 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Should you not be willing to reinstate the page, may I request, at minimum, that provide me a copy of my own statement either by userfying it or emailing it to me or by some other means? I put quite a lot of work into that, cognizant of the deadline and in that face of quite a backlog at work and I don't have a copy. I had a good faith expectation that my complaint would get considered and I should have a chance to repost more suitably if I can determine how without having to rewrite from scratch. Msnicki (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

May I add that I think NE Ent did include a link to a diff of DP's rude remarks to me in the section he wrote. Those are the same remarks that NE Ent tried to discuss with DP and was unable to resolve. I think the requirements were met. Msnicki (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I'm willing to reconsider, and I will certainly give you or anybody else a copy of their own statement. How would you and NE Ent feel if I were to refactor the RFC to focus on the issue where you had common concerns? Did NE Ent discuss with DP those rude remarks? An RFC could also include any evidence of past issues. I'd strongly recommend excluding hearsay--such as criticism from ArbCom guides and such. The RFC should focus on diffs of DP's edits that cause concerns. Also, you can't request sanctions via RFCU. You can request that DP behave properly. If he subsequently doesn't, you can then go to ArbCom and request sanctions. I am very concerned that DP should be held accountable if they have done wrong. Jehochman 03:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, NE Ent did attempt to discuss DP's behavior toward me. That's the unhelpful exchange I quoted above in which DP blew him off for his "laughable" concern.

May I propose that the page be reinstated with the understanding that NE Ent will provide a statement similar to what I provided, outlining specifically what he observed on that Barney incident and how he tried unsuccessfully (as shown above) to seek resolution, that he will also add a proper signature in certification section, and that we leave everything else as background?

When I amended my statement, User:Bbb23 suggested posting notices for anyone who already endorsed, allowing them to decide if they still wished to endorse, which we could certainly do again. Would that be agreeable? Msnicki (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to help you both refile it in a correct format. After that I could leave a note for each prior participant. You want to do this right to get a good result. Jehochman 04:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I would very much appreciate your help, as I'm sure NE Ent would as well. I've been to a lot of AfDs and other discussions, but this is completely foreign territory for me. Msnicki (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew my "Outside view" (via striking) from the Rfc-in-question. If the Rfc is restored, I request my 'striked view' be excluded from the restoration (if possible), thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here is a re-factored version that just contains the content provided by NE Ent and Msnicki: User:Jehochman/Draft. I've taken out some stuff that was inflammatory, irrelevant or just plain not good evidence (eg Hearsay). Less is often more. It's better to focus on the facts, which can speak for themselves. You are welcome to copy that page, edit, and refile. You'll want to re-sign your statements and check it over. You don't need to follow my advice, but I think you'll find that you get better results if you do. The decision is yours. If you need me to restore any other contents, just let me know and I'll deliver it to you. If you'd like me to notify the editors who commented before, I will. If you'd like me to check it over when you are done and move the RFC/U from the candidate section to the certified section, I will (so long as the minimum requirements are met). I regret the bureaucracy, but this is serious stuff so we should do our best to be fair to all concerned. Sincerely, Jehochman 04:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please keep this in mind: The purpose of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution isn't to get somebody else into trouble; it's to get them out of trouble. Jehochman 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is very helpful. But why is my account an "outside view" given the instructions, "This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute"? (Obviously, I really do need and appreciate your help navigating this.) Msnicki (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just remove the word "Outside". You could also say "View by certifier Msnicki". Point being, the section with your certification diffs should be kept short. Your view is a view like anybody else's. NE Ent already took up the space for the filer's view. Additionally, to get more eyeballs to read what you are saying, I suggest you trim it to 500 words, if you can. Jehochman 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to add a comment here (I was pinged for other reasons, actually). I realize things have evolved since the beginning of this topic, but I had the identical reaction to Jehochman. I felt that the RfC/U was fatally flawed. I said as much in my statement. However, I didn't feel comfortable (confident?) deleting it, but I would have endorsed such an action.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'd really appreciate your suggestions, too. I'd like to know about the flaws you've spotted so I can understand whether they might be corrected. I think it's clear enough what I experienced and that NE Ent saw and experienced as well in the Barney incident. We're either restricted to one incident or not. If we're restricted to one incident, it doesn't seem fair to complain (as I think some did but I don't remember who) that we're picking a single incident and who knows if it's typical. If it's one incident, I think I have the goods on DP, that his behavior was completely unacceptable and that he made some very poor decisions, then refused to discuss them, contrary to Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Administrator_conduct, precisely as NE Ent told him at ANI. But what do I know about how this works, much less how to file my report. Msnicki (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wanted to pop by to simply say I completely agree with Jehochman's deletion, I also agree with Bbb23 in that the entire RFC/U was just flawed and would've had my full support for deletion, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll just say that I'm pleased to review the contents of the draft and make some amendments to my actions - indeed, seeing as those are primarily ancient it's already been done - but will not play "double jeopardy" and accept this being filed a second time whatsoever. I'm truly happy to try and resolve things between Msnicki and myself - I tried, and she went to ANI and unfortunately got stomped by the community, and is angry at me because of that. As such, any concern that was quashed at ANI cannot be brought up in this manner. In terms of the Lecen incident, I cannot have apologized in a more heartfelt manner for my I believe first-ever AE enforcement action. What you're looking for in RFC is for the party to understand their actions, and work to resolve them - that requires BOTH sides to work on the resolution aspects. RFC/U will not bring about a desysop - but those who file/certify and truly fail to try and work things out have truly failed the process the panda ₯’ 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why was this deleted rather than hatted or struck through? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  Because it was a huge mess. And it wasn't properly certified. I'm trying to help the users file a proper page. DP, if you are still watching, I urge you to answer it sincerely if refiled or you can answer here and now on the substance and see if that satisfies Msnicki. Jehochman 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, "double jeopardy" is in play Jehochman - I will not participate in a re-filed RFC because we're not at the point where any RFC is required. I don't think that Msnicki understands that she is required to have an open mind and try to work things out by commenting in the RFC. She has shown no signs of trying to do so before now. She's flat-out saying "desysop" - well, RFC doesn't do that. I know that English isn't my first language, but many of Msnicki's complaints are that she either a) misunderstood the meaning of what I said, or b) she added her own meaning to what I said. So yes, I'm VERY happy to try and resolve the communication issues - but it has to work both ways. Once I see commitment from her to re-read and work with an open mind, I'll re-engage. But shotgun approaches don't work, not does the hit-and-run seen so far. the panda ₯’ 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)