Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 13 January 2010 (→Jpat: reply to Mackan79). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Apology.

Now that I can make this statement freely and not under the threat of indefinite block I wish to say that this was wrong-headed, I should not have done it, and I apologize for having done so. Let us both endeavor to put this matter behind us and speak of it no more. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy editing. Jehochman 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Swimapod

Hey, Jehochman. I don't understand why the animated gif Swimapod in Bishapod's userboxen is suddenly no longer animated. Do you? So sad! The image is animated all right, including the thumb on the image page (scroll down). But the thumb in the userbox isn't, and Bishapod is all "oh woe no more splash". :-( Help? Bishonen | talk 00:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

• Note: Animated gif on my page froze, too. (Also other problems.) There has been a software upgrade goof of some kind. Proofreader77 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Same on my signature page. The animated horse has stopped running and the flashing lights aren't, but I think the lego animation is still working... thank goodness! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugzilla has been filed for this ...

bugzilla:22041. Tech folks will resolve. -- Proofreader77 20:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the most useful talkpage watchers of any editor. Jehochman 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Useful," may ass. LoL They screwed up MY pretty userpage. Pure selfishness. :-) (And I just waywardly hang around here for inspiration for the Misplaced Pages Western Musical and have some dirt to casually mock Jehochman about ... at fitting moments. ^;^) --Proofreader77 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly...

Despite your warning, Neutralhomer decided to lob some more attacks on AN, make an ultimatum (I'm not sure why they feel that I need to do something to close the thread), and then carry it out without even waiting for their self-imposed time limit to expire. I don't want to take this to ANI, because that would likely invite more of the same. Can you (or one of your talk page watchers) deal with it? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer is indefed. Please go edit some articles instead of involving yourself further in these disputes. Thank you. Jehochman 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jehochman. I don't actually try to get into these kinds of disputes, you know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of Damiens.rf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Regarding this block of User:Damiens.rf, can you provide diffs for each of the 5 problems you noted? Those are rather strong accusations and I think there is plenty of room for interpretation.  Frank  |  talk  16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Walk through the contributions. Damiens.rf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As time permits I'll pull a selection of diffs. Jehochman 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman. I see you are back editing, so I guess I'll post a comment here first. I'm tending towards overturning this block. The main reason is that at least two of the rationales you cited for the block are quite problematic, in my view: first, the charge of "racism" is a very hefty one and, without evidence, indeed constitutes a severe personal attack. It should never have been made without citing clear evidence right from the start. Personally, I believe the charge is quite absurdly mistaken. Secondly, I'm afraid I object in the strongest possible terms against your use of the charge of "vandalism" to describe D's attempt at removing those quotes. It is an unfortunate myth, hard to eradicate but a myth nevertheless, that "removal of cited information" ipso facto constitutes vandalism. It is bad enough that many of our inexperienced users keep making such claims in all sorts of situations; seeing a senior administrator of your standing echo that myth is, with all due respect, very disappointing. There can be any number of valid editorial reasons for removing correctly cited information, and in this case D. evidently felt he had such reasons – and he did explain them properly and followed reasonable dispute resolution methods when challenged about them. This was a legitimate content dispute, nothing else. As for the charge of "hounding" through repeated IfD nominations, this problem has been discussed repeatedly and the result is always the same: it is a fact that some users – including good-faith highly productive users, unfortunately – tend to upload very large numbers of borderline or problematic non-free images, and often succeed in establishing local consensus over a limited topic area leaving them and their immediate fellow editors with the (mistaken) assumption that such liberal usage is legitimate. When an image patroller chances across that topic area, he will then have no choice but to tackle the whole bunch. It is easy to agree that this will cause stress and possibly some aggravation to the parties involved, but it is unavoidable. It would simply not be efficient to tackle only a few and let the remaining 95% of problematic images stand untouched, in the hope that some other patroller will come across them some other time. The demand that image patrollers should divide their attention in some "random" fashion across many uploaders and topic areas in order to save individuals the stress of having large batches of their work scrutinised at once is simply not a reasonable demand to make. This has repeatedly been discussed with respect to D.'s work (last time in mid-December, if I remember correctly), and it always boils down to the recognition that we have the contributions log for a good reason, and using them to clean up problematic editing patterns is not "hounding".

As for the civility concerns, yes, it may be that D. can sometimes sound abrasive, but the treatment he is getting here in cases like this is hardly going to improve his mood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I said, and am very concerned that you not unilaterally, and in derogation of policy, overturn my block. Please take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard for discussion. I do not agree with you. Please don't take any action until there is a consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Damiens.rf_block_review. Jehochman 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(several ec) Sorry, didn't seem there was also the noticeboard thread already. I was wondering at first: I'm here discussing things with you, as I should, so what's wrong?! Anyway, will head over to the AN thread now; but my position remains the same. (And no, me overturning you after fulfilling my obligation of consultation, as I did, would never have been wheelwarring.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Acting impetuously while there's an ongoing discussion may not be wheel warring, but it certainly isn't best practice or good judgement. We've always gotten along pretty well as far as I remember. Let's let that discussion go on. Add your points, and in the end we'll see what the consensus is. Thank you. Jehochman 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Further comments to the discussion at WP:AN, please. Jehochman 21:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil 07:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by admin Malik Shabazz

Do you think this is an approriate comment from an admin? The only way to interpret it is that he is accusing me of lying. He is denying this, but refuses to modify his comments although I have asked him to do so. Offliner (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In order to understand the situation, please see all my responses at User talk:Offliner#Tylman AfD. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See also ("instead of attacking it because you don't like its subject"). For purposes of transparency I have sent Jehochman an email regarding the AfD. Triplestop x3 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Which demonstrates you don't understand the concept of "transparency" very well. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Do you want me to copy the email here? There was nothing on the email asking him to vote. It merely asked for advice on how to assure a fair outcome without any politics going on. Triplestop x3 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review?

You appear to have unblocked Neutralhomer, despite their history and the fact that another admin refused their unblock request. I recognize your kinder, gentler style, but Neutralhomer has already had many many chances to improve their behaviour. You asked that admins speak to you or obtain consensus on AN/ANI before unblocking - I am requesting that you obtain that same consensus for this unblock, and that you reblock Neutralhomer until you have done so. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly request that you not interact with that user again. They are under an obligation not to get involved with you at all. If they interfere with your activities on Misplaced Pages, let me know. Otherwise, please ignore them. Thank you. Jehochman 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no desire to interact with them, but that is irrelevant to my request. Neutralhomer has been under several such obligations before and it hasn't helped prevent recurrences. This is their third or fourth indef block that has been lifted based on promises of better behaviour in the future. Please start a discussion about your unblock and re-block them until there is a consensus for unblock. It would likely be better if you started the discussion than if I did, but I am content to do so if you are unwilling. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, to me it looks like you're going a little too far. I was patient with your complaints and took them seriously. If I block somebody indefinitely, that does not mean forever. It means until suitable arrangements are made for a return to editing. The arrangements were made to my satisfaction, so I undid my block. Should you start making needless conflict over this issue, you run the risk of being placed under an editing restriction. So just drop it and do something else. Neutralhomer will not bother you again. Personal conflicts have no place on Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 13:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for having taken my complaint seriously. I assume you did so because you saw some merit in them, not to humour me. You quite reasonably asked other admins to seek consensus for unblocking Neutralhomer, yet when I ask you to do the same (after another admin refused to unblock them), you threaten me with some unnamed editing restriction. This isn't a question of personal conflict, it is an attempt to prevent others from being harassed in a similar manner. I have no intention of interacting with Neutralhomer and I hope they will be able to prevent themselves from interacting with me, but look at Neutralhomer's block log - previous "arrangements" have failed to prevent episodes such as the most recent. Why are you unwilling to put your unblocking of Neutralhomer up for review when that is what you requested of other admins? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Because he's a goofball? 68.0.191.139 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, you reverted the removal of trolling here but didn't respond to my request. I'm not going to assume that you are refusing to open the requested discussion, but if you fail to respond to this message I think that would be a reasonable assumption so I'll go ahead and start the discussion myself. I don't understand your reluctance to do this - would it help if I agreed not to participate in the discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at WP:AN. I continue to be puzzled by your refusal to start the discussion yourself, but I hope that I have accurately represented your position and actions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PLAXICO. Jehochman 16:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do not understand your attitude towards this, especially given that you requested the same of other admins. Why should simply questioning your unblock of a user earn me any kind of editing restriction? If there is no consensus to reblock Neutralhomer then they will not be reblocked. I realise that some people feel protective of Neutralhomer and that I will likely be cast as the villain in this piece, but there really isn't any need to threaten me. It would have been much simpler for you to have started the discussion, but I suspect you actually prefer this situation. Over and out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have any real life connections to the controversy surrounding Roman Polanski? Jehochman 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand you feel that my content is somehow skewed in regards to Polanski. I have raised Proofreader77 concerns in ANI, which were exposed by his interactions of constant reverts and fighting on Polanski. It began when Proofreader77 wanted to insert the appearance of the 13 year old girl....looking older....as HIS STATED means of mitigating the perceptions of the readers, when they read about the 44 year old man and a 13 year old. Basically saying that because a girl look a way, it was more understandable what happened. This is much like Generically saying: The woman was very pretty which resulted in her being raped. Proofreader77 actively sought to remove common sense items. Including the victims own words regarding the event. I am very comfortable that I am editing in line with the guidelines of encyclopedic entries of BLP in Misplaced Pages.

If you want to challenge my content, feel free. But at this point you are doing a disservice to the ANI by taking your content concerns about me...DISPLACING what has been raised about Proofreader77. Please take the time to read what other admins are saying. Reference the restrictions. Look at the Donation banner attacking admins. Or don't. It's not a bear trap, you can disengage. But if you do want to participate in the Proofreader77 ANI, please do so without avoidance of reading and understanding the problems being raised about Proofreader77, which you clearly have not spent the time to understand.

Seem reasonable to you? --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not reasonable. When you file a complaint, you bring scrutiny on yourself. Any thorough investigator looks at the person filing a complaint to assess their credibility before checking the substance of the complaint. I routinely do this, not just for your thread, but for all threads I respond to. You have not answered the question I asked: Do you have any real world connection to the Roman Polanksy controversy? Are you somebody who has an interest in the outcome of the matter? Your editing pattern creates an appearance that you may. Jehochman 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As to if I have a personal connection to Polanski beyond that of being a person that is concerned with humanity and it relationship to our children, who are ourselves....No. As to looking at the messenger instead of the message...to an ANI...the merits stand on their own, which you should assess for that.

Now, what I raised in ANI, is beyond myself, and any content that I am concerned with, singular to myself, though certainly the actions of Proofreader77 have effected me. If you are going to assess me, because of a backwards approach, so be it. But your desired ignorance of the subject matter shown in the ANI, is a liability to productive remarks. Your approach to spout off literally challenging what work I have done, as a basis to whether the concerns are valid, is a remedial approach, and the antithesis to AGF. While I appreciate your choice of how you prefer to interact, challenging a person raising concerns, in the way that you have done, only serves to make others chose to not raise their concerns.

My apologies, I had not previously seen your banner of clown masks, but that is still no excuse for making ANI a circus de jour. If you want to challenge the work that I do, do that on its own. If you want to assess the message that I have carried to ANI as one without basis on its own merits, do that, and say that. Why not read the bolded remarks by Hans Alder and Gwen Gale, for the very least you can do in terms of due diligence, before opining. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman Polanski is an expert-level article because of all the issues involved. It is very easy for an inexperienced editor to run afoul of policies there. I recommend you diversify your editing by working on some non-controversial articles. This will help you gain an appreciation of how to work within, and maintain, Misplaced Pages's numerous site standards. Anybody can edit, but learned how to make quality edits that stick takes time and practice. Regards, Jehochman 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you're involved ...

... in the Damiens.rf/Tony the Marine thing you may feel like helping out with an image sourcing issue. Especially since you seem to be a user of LinkedIn. Our article on Carlos Ortiz Longo has an image which probably came from NASA, but we aren't quite sure. I've tried a couple of email addresses for Dr Ortiz Longo but without luck. He has a profile at LinkedIn. Any chance you could email the good doctor and ask him if he has any ideas on where File:Carlos Ortiz Longo.JPG came from? Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed him for help. Jehochman 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat

Hi Jehochman, would you mind explaining the basis for this block in a little more detail? The fact that someone is focused on one topic is not generally a reason to block them, especially when it's been a short period of time. I see that there has been a topic ban of some sort, but it isn't clear to me if he is being said to have violated it or not. I believe the reason he is questioning WMC's involvement is that WMC proposed the ban and then asked a specific administrator to evaluate it. This may not be seen as abusive on Misplaced Pages, but to an outsider it would look strange that someone could bring a complaint and then also choose who evaluates it with no input from the other side. I have not followed this user, but I think a clearer explanation here would be helpful. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is endless disruption and violation of WP:BATTLE. Please read the COIN thread linked above the block reason. If you are not satisfied, please start a discussion at WP:AN and wait for a consensus to form. I will gladly join that discussion and provide additional details. Thank you. Jehochman 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)