| Revision as of 16:05, 7 January 2008 edit209.221.240.193 (talk) →Waterboarding: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:35, 19 November 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,380,404 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Jehochman/Archives 25. (BOT) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Inline image | |||
| <div class="usermessage"><div class="plainlinks" align="center">Leave a '''. Trolls will be eaten by ].'''</div></div> | |||
| |image = File:Naturhistorisk Privatundervisning.jpg | |||
| |size = 500px | |||
| |align = center | |||
| |alt = Placeholder alt text | |||
| |fullwidth = yes | |||
| |capcenter = yes | |||
| |caption = <br/>{{big|{{big|"Hold on, I zoned out for a minute. Which one of you was the Icewhiz sock again?"}}}}{{small|]}} | |||
| }} | |||
| <!--my archives are messed up so I have removed the links. They might be fixed some day--> | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:Jehochman/Archives | |||
| |format= %%i | |||
| |age=168 | |||
| |minkeepthreads=1 | |||
| |maxarchsize=350000 | |||
| |numberstart=25 | |||
| |header={{aan}} | |||
| |archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki> | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" | ]<br />] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| <br/> | |||
| This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''7''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | |||
| <!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Jehochman/Archive 4--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| ==Questions== | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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. | |||
| --] (]) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Justice for all! ] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll never quarrel with that sentiment, it's one of my personal favorites.--] (]) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Arbcom has accepted, it opens tomorrow, shall we shake hands and wish one another a Happy New Year? --] (]) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I hope that my comments at ] 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. ] (]) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :* No apology needed! You are welcome to question my actions at any time, and I appreciate your feedback. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Goosecreek RFCU, IP based ban evasion? == | |||
| You might want to look at my new comments on ] which are due to ]. Is this ban evasion and a range block situation? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 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 . 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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 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. --] (]) 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 ] 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 ] for you too, that's only moderately used. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 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. --] (]) 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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 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. --] (]) 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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 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 ]. What should I do? (besides delete it?) --] (]) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I blocked the IP for two weeks. By then they will hopefully lose interest in bothering you. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I have semi-protected your talk page for one week. This should prevent further disruption. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry to bother you again; disruptive comments appearing on talk page of article ] , by 129.133.124.203 --] (]) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==LaruaWA11== | |||
| Hey. I just noticed your comment. By all means, feel free to take over. Regards, ] 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : You have the situation well in hand. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Block evasion? == | |||
| Hello. Since you were the blocking admin for {{User|129.133.124.199}} due to his conduct at ], I thought you might be interested in 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! —] <small>(] ])</small> 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : No need to apologize. Let the user go in peace. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. --] (]) 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--] <sup>]</sup> 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This has been brought to ANI. I have mentioned your overview of my actions there--] <sup>]</sup> 14:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could you take a look at the section immediately below this one? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Actually the above is ] at WP:AN. I'm having a look at the below now--] <sup>]</sup> 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 ] - if you would prefer I could ask a different sysop to overview (again), in case you are over worked or wish to recuse yourself--] <sup>]</sup> 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I will be out, so you may with to ask another if you need fast response. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I contacted ] 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--] <sup>]</sup> 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :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. ] (]) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Explanation for human behavior is the primary distinction between feminism and sociobiology. Feminists subscribe to ], 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. ] (]) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Without ], these edits look like you are pushing your personal opinions onto Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The pages ] and ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] and mother earth/earth goddess types believe in an essentialist idea of femininity. Even the postcolonial-feminist theorist, ] coined the term ] 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 ] to add this material to WP and citing the wikipdia articles ] and ] wont be good enough unfortunately--] <sup>]</sup> 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 ]? I would make clear where they came from, and invite further discussion. ] (]) 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? ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ? 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? ] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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 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. --] (]) 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 ] and possibly ]. 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 ] where I've seen a lot of cases like this one. Regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 12:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough. I also do not like advertising on wikipedia in any form. --] (]) 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 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. ] (]) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == How is it going == | |||
| Have a look thx ] (]) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:] == | |||
| 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, ]] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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." | |||
| </div> | |||
| Please think about how oppressive this conduct is and, just as important, how it is perceived by people who disagree with your interpretations. Thanks. ] (]) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 02:35, 19 November 2024
"Hold on, I zoned out for a minute. Which one of you was the Icewhiz sock again?"Source
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)