User talk:Elonka/Archive 28

Halp

Now he's using User:129.250.211.12, an old reliable one for him.

Whoops now on

speak!

01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Elonka. Not to keep lengthening the everlasting thread on Lar's page, I feel I should reply here that you're quite right: Rm994 didn't post to ANI. It was most likely at your page that I saw the user's call for help against an aggressive editor who kept blanking their page. Not that I was consciously watching your page, but I had lazily let it remain on my watchlist after I'd posted there before. ("Monitor" your page, as you call it, is not something I've ever done. Seriously, what for?) I'm sorry I misspoke about it. I can't remember, or even imagine, why I went look up that particular post on your page when it appeared on my watchlist—it's downright odd, to my sense, since it certainly didn't have a striking edit summary (it had none) or anything, and to the best of my knowledge I'd never heard of Rm994. Anyway, I was obviously mixed up when I wrote about it on Lar's page, and I apologize for my error. When something that long ago was in question, I should have checked before saying anything at all, however clearly I thought I remembered it, and I appreciate your setting me right. That said, I still stand by my other remarks on Lar's page, I'm afraid. As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't the one who "jumped into the middle of a discussion", you were (which was fine). You offered rather superior and as I thought them (and, I'm afraid, still think them) priggish references to well-known policies to Risker and myself, who are pretty experienced admins (which was less fine, in my opinion). Anyway, I'm very sorry I misremembered about where I saw Rm994's sad plaint. You'll be pleased to hear that I've finally remembered to "unwatch" your page. I do try to keep my watchlist trimmed down to pages I'm actually interested in, as it's much more effective that way. But it's a bit of an eternal struggle between chaos and laziness. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Hi, Ok, I will post elsewhere from now. But the new incarnation of the same vandal is User talk:Maryland's isn't Disneyland and he is still vandalizing several user pages. Please look at his edit history. I have started writing a paper about him: User:History2007/Content protection. Everytime he vandalizes, I write more on that article.... Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's not vandalizing anymore. He was blocked on October 19, indefinitely.[8] You won't be seeing that account again. If you do see him pop up on any different accounts, please let me or another administrator know, as quickly as possible.

WP:ANI is a good place to post to get rapid attention. --Elonka

20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - yes he is blocked. I was looking on his talk page, not user page. But he will be back. The poor fellow has some sort of obsessive psych problem that needs professional help. I think he was also EurovisionMan and was vandalizing other topics and was blocked. Also vandalizes Lithuanian Wikipedia, and has a chess obsession too I hear. Anyway, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out. BTW, as a word of advice, please be careful about how you refer to editors. Even when dealing with vandals, it's not a good idea to make pronouncements about their presumed mental state. It's fine to point out the actions of an account, but for best results, try to avoid expressing opinions about the person behind the keyboard.

WP:ATP are also worth reading. --Elonka

21:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the academic papers link you provided was interesting - I had no idea it was there. I will read some of those and then work more on the issue of consistency between Rivers in Europe vs Rivers in Germany type feature that I was thinking about. That is a feature I would really like to see in Wikipedia as well, and would make image searches much more flexible as well. So some good came out of that page block after all! Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka.

Please could you make my account vanish. I no longer wish to contribute to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first read

WP:RENAME. --Elonka

23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, DIY? Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

this comment [9] is in no way a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. please read over them policies to better familiarize yourself wit' 'em. by the way, "

Michele Renouf? Yes, watching 'em both, though more eyes are always helpful. There appears to be some disagreement about the BLP issues at the Renouf article. I'm not familiar with the sources, but am trying to come up to speed. --Elonka

01:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need your input at

WP:ANI#User Causteau and The Jerusalem Post

.

It seems that

WP:AGF can be used as an effective tool against real and imagined conspiracies. --Hans Adler (talk

) 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just got another personal attack via IP here; I'm not sure if I am supposed to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or if there's a more specific place? I suppose it's classified as vandalism, right? Thx. — TAnthony^Talk 01:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. And I'm contacting folks off-wiki to see if there's further action that can be taken. Enough is enough. --Elonka 01:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you'd like to followup, it's looking like the (exposed) IPs are coming from Florida, so you could contact the ISPs and file a complaint. Many ISPs, if you can show them that someone is using their system to make these kinds of attacks, will yank the account access. To see the ISP, go to the anons' talkpages, and click on the "WHOIS" link at the bottom. Then you can go to those ISP pages, and look for a "report abuse" or "contact us" link. These might be places to start:[10][11] Give them diffs to the worst of the attacks. If this guy is a student at the University of Florida, it might even get him kicked out of the school. --Elonka 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, for the IP block, advice and (I assume) the CheckUser report ... I've submitted diffs to the ISP. The U of S Florida IPs were used for the suspected sockpuppet reverts and such, not really report-worthy. — TAnthony^Talk 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If they want further information, the CheckUsers can probably provide additional IP/computer information to law enforcement, though it would probably need to go through the Wikimedia legal counsel, Mike Godwin. Keep me posted if you have any other questions! --Elonka 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish the link to be clickable for obvious reasons. Kindly respect my wishes. You may give another explanation below which does not contain the link directly. Please try to act a little more thoughtfully in future. Mathsci (talk)

Mathsci, frankly this is getting a bit silly. You posted the link, the editor didn't know what to do with it and Elonka assisted him only after he asked her to do so. If you do not want the link to be public, don't post it - whether or not its clickable makes little to no difference. Shell ^babelfish 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, your being unhelpful, please stop. You have made false statements in the past in a failed attempt trying to support Elonka's position. QuackGuru 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you have any problems with my past or current comments regarding yourself or your behavior, I would be happy to discuss the situation with you or engage in dispute resolution. Please do not insert these issues into other topics. Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shell's comment above (of 20:49, 21 October 2008). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys has not replied yet, as far as I am aware, so Shell's message baffles me. Meanwhile my letter has been reposted slightly differently on mathsci.free.fr. Elonka has been told where the new location is (a not very subtle change with mervyn-emrys changed to Mervyn-Emrys) and has my blessing to pass the message on if as it seems she recorded it. If this does not work I will post detailed instructions about the new location of the message in a non-clickable form on Mervyn's talk page. Perhaps people could be more patient. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The new message is posted there now. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look up under "Hi Elonka", Mervyn Emrys's most recent request of Elonka was that she assist him in understanding your message. Sometimes its not patience, but a little good faith and investigation that helps understand a situation ;) Shell ^babelfish 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that - many apologies. The main thing is that my message gets read. I meant everything I wrote and sincerely hope that this will clear the air and help Mervyn feel at ease on wikipedia. Again sorry about the crossed wires. I will not post again during oyster night in my cyber-bistro :) Best wishes, Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you tease with the oysters - I may just have to go acquire some seafood. I do hope the post helps clear the air; best of luck. Shell ^babelfish 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Merci et bon appétit ! Mathsci (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The page

Sure, just start a thread at the talkpage, proposing the move. If no one disagrees after a few days, I can get it moved for you. Otherwise, you may wish to handle it via

WP:RM. --Elonka

04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jayron got it. If you have any other trouble though, please don't hesitate to let us know! --Elonka 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I looked at Rollback and it seems to need a script for a massive rollback of a vandal's edits. What scripting language and/or system is that written in. I guess I need to read more, but is there a way to do 10 rollbacks at once? Is there an easy linkto that explanation page? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it's usually not that complicated, you just click the rollback link, and it removes all of the edits that a vandal has made on an article, back to the previous person's edit. See

WP:ROLLBACK. --Elonka

04:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if it can be done on multiple articles, and within a given date range for an IP, etc. Cheers History2007 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look into some of the vandal-fighting tools. See the Tools section at

WP:CUV. I've heard good things about Huggle though haven't used it myself. --Elonka

07:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will read those. History2007 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Elonka! I have a question about a small detail in Utto (disambiguation). Could you be so kind to tell me, why the phrase Utto is a German given name dropped out in your edit from 21 October? Do you think it can be considered self-explanatory from the following examples, or was there another reason? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was simply doing a rapid cleanup, as I go through

WP:MOSDAB, which is our Manual of Style for those pages. It's just a guideline though, so editors are free to choose what they think works best for a particular situation, even if it doesn't conform exactly. :) If you think the page would be better with that wording, feel free to tweak.  :) --Elonka

16:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:-) I put the given name back in, somehow I feel more comfortable with it (and WP:MOSDAB led me to Elvis (disambiguation) - Utto seems a bit similar on a much smaller scale). Daranios (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, I added a my opinion to the section on using names in Hungarian and Slovak articles. Trisw (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You have my word that I will not be posting to it directly, but I would like to reserve the right to bring to the attention of admins postings that violate Wiki policies, although as I said, I won't edit directly on that page anymore. Good enough?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, yes.  :) Thanks, Elonka 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I was about a second away from just protecting Jagz' talk page and being done with it, when I first saw his comments there - he's wasted more than enough editorial time and energy. He's indefinitely blocked and got caught using a sock to evade his block and carry on his old grudges, after first denying it all. His unblock request has apparently been declined by ArbCom. He doesn't own his userpage - being allowed to edit there is a courtesy should he wish to give some indication he wants to edit constructively. Using his talkpage to attack another editor is an abuse. I haven't protected it because you've asked him to stand down and I'll wait to see if he does, but any further abuse of his talkpage and I think we've given him 10x more than enough rope. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that he's written an FA in the past, I'd probably agree with you. And I know that you and I have very different perceptions of the situation, but I still have a few dregs left in my Barrel o' Good Faith, that he's a good editor who just got tipped over the edge by attacks from all sides. As I've scanned through the history at Talk:Race and intelligence, over and over again I see what appear to be good faith comments by Jagz, which were responded to over and over by people calling him a troll. I lost track of the number of times that I saw Slrubenstein say DNFTT in response to anything that Jagz posted. Frankly, if I were trying to participate in discussions at a controversial article, and I repeatedly had people referring to me as a troll, I'd probably get testy too. For example, try to read this thread with a different perspective.[12] Don't start with, "Oh, there's Jagz again", try and mentally remove his name and insert someone else's that you respect (SandyGeorgia?). What I see is someone who kept trying to make good edits, then kept being attacked as a troll, and then when he responded even once with incivility, the attacks just increased. And then when he got indef blocked for "trolling", that pushed him further over the edge, and he finally started acting in the way that everyone was expecting him to act (which he saw as making a point, and they saw as just proving their own point). So I'd really like to see if we could just get everyone to go back to their corners and stop poking each other with pitchforks, and we might be able to salvage some good editors out of this? --Elonka 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't say that he "wrote a featured article". He was one of a number of contributors to an FA back in 2005, for which he deserves credit, and if he showed the slightest indication of doing anything similarly constructive now or in the future, I'd be willing to cut him more slack.

I don't see a victimized "good editor" who was simply provoked by "attacks from all sides", but I think we've agreed to disagree there so I won't belabor it. I will say that I see an editor determinedly promoting an agenda in violation of

WP:NPOV etc, while generally remaining superficially civil. The success of this approach suggests to me an unfortunate primacy of civility over the content policies which guide the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. Good content work should not excuse incivility, but it's equally or even more problematic to allow civility to excuse poor or biased content.

At the moment, Jagz is banned (meaning he shouldn't really be contributing even on his own talk page), and he was using the slack he was given there to, as you said, poke people with a pitchfork. He's well aware of the avenues for appealing his ban, and I believe he's actively explored them. He can continue to do so, but he doesn't need access to his talk page to do that. MastCell ^Talk

21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, was there a

banning discussion that I missed? Could you please provide a link? --Elonka

22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going by the tags on his userpage, which was perhaps a mistake. Generally, someone who's been indefinitely blocked, been caught socking, had 3 unblock requests declined, and had an ArbCom appeal declined is more or less "banned" ("users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community", from

WP:BAN). On the other hand, whether banned or simply indefinitely blocked, the substance of my view is essentially unchanged. MastCell ^Talk

17:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's better to just call it an indef block for now, rather than a ban. To be honest, my gut feeling is that he's already running another account to evade the block, which is probably why his answers are so evasive, and also is probably why he seems in no particular hurry to get the Jagz account unblocked. Then again, if he is running another account, it's working on other articles, so we'd get the encyclopedia work out of him one way or the other, whether Jagz is blocked or unblocked. Not that I'd support him evading the block in any way... If another sock were discovered, I'd support an immediate indef block. Also, as a sort of side note about the inconsistencies of wiki culture, I find it fascinating that Jagz, with a long history of contributions, is indef blocked at this point, and there's a call to have his talkpage protected so he just goes away entirely. Whereas Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs), which appears to be very much a tendentious single purpose account, is continuing to waste the time of multiple administrators. Ah well, it's the wiki-way, our editors and admins spend time where they want to, even if it's not the most efficient use of their particular efforts! --Elonka 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A most intriguing and cogent comment (about wasting time), I must say. Oddly, sometimes when one does root cause analysis though, one finds that the main timewasting in problematic editor situations is not directly chargeable to the editor themselves, but to the actions of others. Just food for thought. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka,I may be totally wrong, but along those lines, I've just noticed a user account by the name of User:Jagzilla. This could be absolutely no more than mere coincidence -- seems to be a sleeper account -- but the similitude in names was awkward... FYI Never mind it seems to have disappeared since yesterday; either that or somebody put something funny in my drinking water. ;)--Ramdrake (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a real account, but I don't think it's related... It just popped up to create a page in 2007, which page was deleted in 2008, and I haven't seen any other activity. If you do find any other suspicious accounts though, do bring them up! I have very little patience for block evasion. --Elonka 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that KS should be asked to move on, as this is at least theoretically an encyclopedia rather than a battleground. I was actually ready to simply take care of it, in response to a post I saw at

WP:BLP/N, when I noticed that multiple other admins were already involved. I left a note for Lar on his talk page about it. MastCell ^Talk

17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Elonka's use of the phrase "his answers are so evasive" is spot-on. This is one of the main points that has been made about Jagz's contributions to talk pages. Different words were used to describe "evasiveness". Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected

I disagree with your perception, and would ask you to unprotect the page. But please, let's not make this another ANI dramafest. Can we figure out a compromise here? --Elonka 16:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's centralize this - since you've commented in more detail on my talk page, we can discuss it there. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If Elonka wants to continue having a conversation with an indef-blocked editor then Elonka could continue the conversation by email. Is this about a conversation that Elonka wants to continue or is this much bigger? It seems Elonka may want to unblock Jayz. Maybe, that is what this is really about. QuackGuru 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with unprotecting the talk page because of comments like this. QuackGuru 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That comment is from six months ago, and even so, I'm not seeing anything there that violates any Wikipedia policies. To go into a bit more detail about my philosophy here: We have lots of editors who have lots of different points of view.[14][15] Some people think their view is "real", and therefore that people with different views are "wrong". Some people even think that anyone with a wrong view should be blocked from Wikipedia, just for thinking about things the "wrong" way. But that's not how our policies work. Wikipedia articles are not intended to decide disputes, they are supposed to describe disputes. And it's not about what individual editors think, it's about what the

WP:CENSOR. I've engaged in talkpage discussions, trying to prove that there was a consensus to remove the image.[17] But I failed, because each time I tried, the general consensus of Wikipedia editors is that the image should stay on the article, since "Wikipedia isn't censored". Each time I go to that article, I see that image, and I know it's offensive. And the article regularly shows up on my watchlist, sometimes multiple times per day, as new editors try to remove that image, and other people keep putting the image back "per talkpage consensus". I'm not a Muslim, but I've done enough research on Islam that I understand why many Muslims feel that the image is offensive. I don't think the image needs to be deleted outright, but I think that there are better articles where it could be included, instead of putting it smack dab on as important an article as Kaaba, where the image isn't really needed. Anyway, it's a regular reminder to me that even though we may find some images or ideas offensive, that doesn't mean we should remove them from Wikipedia. We're here to provide information, not to avoid offending people. If we were going to try and write our encyclopedia such that no article would offend anyone, we'd have a lot of deletion ahead of us. --Elonka

21:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I popped by because I'm a bit confused... I see you warned OrangeMarlin, apparently for this edit, calling it an "appalling personal attack", and threatening him with a block. I went and looked at it and although I'm a believer in

The edit from Jagz was removed a few minutes later by B (talk · contribs), who also reinstated the indef block on Jagz (as a side note, I have no clue how to write Jagz in the possessive form, yike). Elonka posted this to Jagz talk page. I'm thinking a 'warning' was no longer necessary. And if you wonder why her stance has changed, I should also point out this all occurred four months ago. I know you two haven't been seeing eye to eye lately, but I don't see how this is helping the current situation. Respectfully, --InkSplotch (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; but I was hoping for an answer from Elonka (not from you) about the apparent inconsistency here. I'm a softie, everyone knows it, but I don't get this support for Jagz at all. (see what Slrubenstein writes, just above...) As for "haven't been seeing eye to eye" I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to intrude, and I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself. I've no clue why Elonka might be willing to stick up for Jagz at this point, but you look at two of her diffs and wonder at possible bias. I just wanted to point out that 1) they're four months apart, and 2) she did respond four months ago in a more expected manner: suggesting that Jagz stay blocked. So rather than contrast her current comments about Jagz to her comments to MastCell, I think a more relevant question is, what's changed in Elonka's opinion of Jagz between then and now?

The "eye to eye" comment was in regards to Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs), over whom you both seem to have had a much more pronounced difference of opinion. From my outside perspective, I see quite a few similarities here. I don't suspect bias, I do suspect Elonka is "sticking up for the underdog" or perhaps playing devil's advocate. And while that's not a bad thing, per se, it can be when it becomes reflexive. When it becomes a crusade. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As you have helped moderate before, I would like you to look at [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Another_questionable_reference.3F specific discussion] concerning Wikipedia editing policy. I think it makes the reasons for constant problems in the E1b1b article, very clear for anyone who knows Wikipedia. It requires no opinion on the subject matter of the article. It also shows that for the time being it is inevitable that there will be more reverts and no efforts to compromise. Maybe a clear statement about the definition of edit warring from more people could help avoid the inevitable repetition of edit wars. The problem is that the person involved clearly believes that a pattern of behavior which is the definition of edit warring is actually demanded by Wikipedia "rules".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for something similar, although much less diplomatically, at User talk:Khoikhoi#Re: AN/I. We currently have the situation of an editor taking the actions of two admins as confirmation that their skewed interpretation of policy (slightly rephrased: since the threshold for inclusion is reliable sources, an infinite number of reverts is allowed to prevent removal of reliably sourced sentences, and this does not constitute edit-warring) is correct. This helps nobody; least of all the editor in question. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am complying with the closing of the RFC.[18] But other editors are not complying with the closing of the RFC. I'm not sure why would you want to ban me for complying with the closing of the RFC while other editors are arguing against the consensus and closing of the RFC. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#There are problems with moving forward at chiropractic. QuackGuru 23:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not a ban, it was a request. --Elonka 23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been monitoring Quackguru's actions closely since I warned him about the discretionary sanctions and he has followed my advice to the letter and I have seen no further cause for concern. In particular his editing of the article has followed talkpage consensus with no edit-warring and I've seen no further complaints from editors working on the article about his actions. I would strongly disagree with any topic ban (formal or informal). Tim Vickers (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you may want to read the (rather long) post I made here that puts together my observations of QuackGuru's recent behavior. Shell ^babelfish 05:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I've been meaning to figure out how to do it myself but have never got around to it. Thanks. --Tocino 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Tocino 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I know mate, i've seen a lot of vandalism today in articles i like. it's great that wiki doesn't block so easy, but i've seen good opinionated editors getting banned because an admin was their opposite POV, and i see chronic psycho vandals only full of notes and no bans.150.140.225.175 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are the constructive one? By making edit summaries like this : "if you ever vandalize here again i will kill your family and every person sharing a haplogroup with you" or provoking comments in user talk pages (like this or "tough luck 74.72.11.32, all your edits were reverted. all your "work" gone) Dipa1965 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the post on my talk page. Things have moved on beyond that now. See Incidents page under Coal Mining. I think I'm about done. See also my user page.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that helps. I like especially what you did on the Environmental Effects page. But doesn't leave much on the Coal Mining page. Slim pickins there.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to remove material concerning Mathsci's attempts to out me. I'm concerned about the archived Incident report initially filed about the Law article concerning Yannis, in which Mathsci made a couple references correllating my user page description with the author of a book he referred to concerning the Coal Mining article. He made similar references in a message posted to my talk page, which I deleted, but I imagine there is an archive of that also. In addition he attempted to get me to open email communication with him, I think to get me to identify myself. Sigh.

There is so much more I could add, over time, but this is so discouraging. I think I will wait a few days and then close this account. Maybe I'll be back later, but I doubt it. Too much grief. It's like the old saw "no good deed goes unpunished." Life is short, and I don't need the aggravation of cowboy anarchy. Nobody does...Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This just never stops. Have you seen the thread Mathsci on talk page of FT2? Bizarre.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I have not and will not enter my personal email address on my preferences if that is what is required for me to receive email from someone. I can't do that without revealing my identity, and because there are administrators involved in this controversy who may be able to access my preferences page, I don't think that is wise.

Understand nothing I have experienced so far with Yannis or Mathsci or Slrubenstein or KT2 or Jehochman has inspired much confidence in Wikipedia. They all seem more concerned about themselves than about the Wiki harrassment policy. Only Charles Matthews and you seem to take it at all seriously.

I already have multiple email accounts and see no reason to obtain another just for this silliness. If Mathsci wishes to contact me, s/he can do so on my talk page as you have done. If that is not acceptable, then I guess Mathsci doesn't really wish to contact me on any terms but his/her own.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So, would it be reasonable to characterize Wikipedia as a large scale internet game that allows many simultaneous players; attracts kids who have grown tired of action games and improving their motor skills and are looking for something a little more heady; provides opportunities for non-threatening (e.g., anonymous) interaction with persons having similar inclinations and some adults; provides opportunities for intellectual and social risk-taking and making mistakes without personal social consequences at home; provides those who stick it out for awhile and become administrators with opportunities to participate in rule making and application, as well as discussion of the consequences of imposting sanctions? If so, an encyclopedia is a vehicle for a larger social development experiment for teens, eh? An educational/developmental game? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a long-term problem user, abusive sockpuppeteer who has had three independent block reviews. Unless ArbCom do step in and lift the ban I don't think any admin would consider unblocking. Therefore, he's been community banned. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I would consider unblocking. Based on my own review, Jagz has effectively been tarred and feathered, but no one has yet provided a strong basis for why. I just see a lot of name-calling, without diffs. --Elonka 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a difference. It was disgusting to read and inappropriate. QuackGuru 19:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You would be wise to wait until ArbCom has considered his unblock request. If it is granted, no action from you is necessary, and if it is denied, then you would be placing your own judgment over that of the blocking admin, the three admins who reviewed the unblock request, and ArbCom. I'd recommend you consider your actions very carefully indeed under those circumstances. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that I would just unblock unilaterally. I meant that I am willing to unblock, if other conditions are met. I have no intention of wheel warring. But my understanding of the banning policy, is that, barring a full community banning discussion, as long as there exists an admin who would be willing to consider an unblock, that an indef block is not a ban. I know that there's a lot of confusion though over "what is a ban" and "what is a block". What I've honestly been seeing though with the Jagz situation, is one where a kind of lynch mob mentality set in. There was a content dispute at some articles, including Race and intelligence, which resulted in a certain group of editors repeatedly calling Jagz a troll because they disagreed with the kind of information that he wished to add. Jagz, an editor on Wikipedia since 2005 who had done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past, including some on an article that reached FA, eventually reacted with anger, including some unfortunate incivility. When he did this, it just reinforced all the other voices calling him a troll, and he was indef blocked. He then responded with even worse incivility towards the admin that blocked him. However, aside from the rather constant name-calling by his opponents, no one has yet produced diffs that he was violating Wikipedia policies in any way prior to this dispute. If anyone can provide such diffs, I would be happy to review them. But until then, it is my opinion that we may have blocked a good editor who just lost his temper. Which is why I would still be willing to consider an unblock. --Elonka 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it's probably a good idea to heed what Tim wrote in its entirety. Jagz was community-banned, after much thought and for excellent reasons: primarily that Wikipedia does not tolerate racism, anti-Semitism, etc. Incivility, of which I am sometimes guilty, is one thing, but racism and anti-Semitism and the rest of the -isms that go with those two, is something else entirely. Additionally, serving NPA warnings to those who know full well Jagz' MO and POV is not necessarily helpful and should only be done when it's clearly a vio of NPA, not just anger that a banned editor is still posting in a disruptive and disgusting manner. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch, Jagz was not community-banned. He was indef blocked, there's a difference. See

WP:BAN. As for the other comments, if you're going to make those kinds of accusations towards another editor, you'd better provide diffs, thanks. --Elonka

21:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A

community ban is an indefinite block in which no admin is willing to unblock the user. You concurred with the indefinite block at the time [19] and no admin opposed it. At that point, he was effectively community banned. This user had six mainspace edits (none significant) in his last month here, so I'm not sure what benefit there would be from removing his ban. --B (talk

) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, do you have a job where others do your research for you or where you do your own? And, are you calling Tim's judgment into question? Also, "you'd better provide diffs" implies a threat of some sort (given the tacit "or else"); perhaps "please provide diffs" would be better. Thanks. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Once we know what ArbCom decided, Jim, we'll be in a better position to discuss this. Incidentally, I'm quite happy for my judgment to be questioned, since like everybody I make mistakes all the time, but we need all the facts before we can decide what is the best thing to do. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

True, and while I have to admit to questioning your judgment a couple of times, I ended up agreeing with you. Although I still think you're too calm.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

allow me to add (having been following this little debate out of idle curiosity), that diffs would be very helpful. I've noticed a tendency in wikipedia disputes to rely - sometimes almost exclusively - on character references/assassinations rather than on actual behavior. however, it seems to me that it really shouldn't matter whether Jagz has horns and sulfury smoke coming out of his nose, or whether you and Tim are made entirely out of Barnstars. the issue should still be decided by a careful examination of the questionable behavior in context. no offense to you or your word, but there's nothing quite like seeing for oneself, yah? --Ludwigs2 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagz was under community ban. Elonka lifted the ban, claiming she could mentor him. Rather than call that wheel-warring, I am willing to watch and give Elonka a shot. But she failed miserably - well, I should say Jagz failed. The community ban was restored. I have no idea why Elonka is so invested in revoking the community ban against a disruptive, racist editor. And i am all for giving fellow admin's some slack. But sooner or later disrupting community bans really does bcome wheel-warring and I would say trying to to revoke a community ban a second time, well, that is one step too far, surely. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While Elonka said she would consider unblocking, I'm sure she would not make that decision before gauging the opinions of other editors and waiting for ArbCom's response - she may be bold, but she's not completely indifferent to other people's opinions. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Tim, I stand corrected. But I do have to correct Elonka's characterization of a dispute that she endlessly repeats although she has been corrected: "a certain group of editors repeatedly calling Jagz a troll because they disagreed with the kind of information that he wished to add. Jagz, an editor on Wikipedia since 2005 who had done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past, including some on an article that reached FA, eventually reacted with anger, including some unfortunate incivility." There was and remains a strong consensus at these articles that certain claims, especially the one that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites, is fringe and racist science and virtually any discussion of the claim, except in its historical context, would violate WEIGHT. For well over a year Jagz kept insisting on putting the claim in as a major view among mainstream scientists. We had at least two RfCs. There was an overhwelming consensus against doing this. I and several other editors tried to reason with Jagz, explaining why we rejected his claim. I asked on many occasions for him to explain his reasoning and provide his evidence, and he never did. It was only after several months of his refusal to discuss his edit, combined with his insistence of pushing his fringe POV against consensus, that I began dismissing him as a troll. The problem was not his losing his temper after being called a troll. The problem was his being a troll, i.e. the pattern of racist pov-pushing edits and disruptive behavior on the talk page, and an unwillingless to participate in any attempt to compromise and a refusal to accept mediation... it was all of these troll-behaviors that got him blocked. During the dispute several people provided an explanation of the account, which Elonka ignored. Nor could she produce edit differences to support her case. At this point it is clear to me that the problem is not Jagz but Elonka, who refuses to treat hard-working, well-informed editors, who have consistently argued on the basis of solid research and policy, with any respect or good faith, and who insists that she has the permanent right to review our edits. Do we have to justify every edit to her? Is she the permanent moderator of these pages? By what authority or right? This presumption of power is itself an insult to the Wikipedia community. At this point it seems to me that Elonka is just nursing a bruised ego. She has defended a racist troll and tried to mentor him, and he resisted her best efforts. But she continues to suggest that her opinion must be right and that of all other editors, wrong. Elonka, you made a mistake. We forgive you. Now get over it and move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is as close to a truly "outside" opinion as you're likely to get in Wikipedia. I came here by mistake, having accidentally clicked on a google link that took me to a Wikipedia article rather than to the collection of papers at NYU I needed to consult on a particular topic; I read the Wikipedia entry on the topic with mixed amusement, disbelief, and horror. I wondered to myself, "Who are these people, who could get such an interesting subject so totally and ludicrously wrong?" I saw the "discussion" tab at the top of the page, clicked it, and started reading, going from one article to another. A link from that article led to a Wikiproject that asked for help at "What the Bleep Do We Know." I figured I could be helpful there, so I went there and participated in a discussion that led to a lead that all sides could agree on; I learned a lot during that time about how consensus building works. Following links, I found the fringe theory and NPOV noticeboards, and it was at one of those boards that I learned about the race and intelligence article, which when I read it made me physically ill. I did my masters' degee work in psychology and am familiar with what reliable sources have to say on this topic; I also have some understanding of where the fringe and racist ideas on this subject come from (they come from very marginal polemicists and political think tanks, not from reliable research); those ideas serve a particular political agenda ("neo-Nazi" is an inflammatory term I might not have chosen for purposes of this discussion, but since it's been raised, I'll agree that these ideas do indeed serve a neo-Nazi agenda) but have no place in an encyclopedia that prides itself on being a serious, high-quality reference work that offers a neutral presentation of a topic as portrayed in reliable sources.

The article had been brought to the attention of the noticeboard by Jagz, because there was so much complaint at the article itself about the POV slant of the article, that he wanted some outside opinions and so had started an RfC at the article talk page. The outside opinions overwhelmingly agreed with the inside opinions (that the article was not NPOV as it stood) and because he was unhappy with how the RfC was going, he withdrew the request for comments. He did this twice as I recall, announced and then withdrew requests for comments when they didn't go his way. He was obviously not interested in working to arrive at the consensus of reliable sources; instead he seemed interested only in keeping the article as it was, POV and very unencyclopedic. In this case, it was one person (as I recall there might have been one other working along with Jagz to promote this agenda, but I don't remember the name) working against the consensus of all other editors. I thought consensus was supposed to be a good thing; to call editors who have reached consensus with reliable sources on a topic a "lynch mob" is to fail to understand what our purpose is here. To insist that responsible editors reach some sort of consensus with editors promoting material that has no place in the encyclopedia is to serve only the purpose of the fringe advocates, not to serve the purpose of building an encyclopedia.

In my reading on Wikipedia I had come to realize that while the core policies that form the underpinnings of the project are brilliant and should ensure the high-quality product that is the stated goal, they can only promote that goal if their enforcement is a high priority, and I didn't see any commitment at any level to enforcing these policies. I identified (not in consultation with anyone here but simply my own conclusions drawn from my own reading in articles that interest me) three editors who were disrupting articles by continually trying to insert material that served some agenda other than the encyclopedic agenda of accurately portraying the subject as represented in reliable sources; I decided that if these three editors were blocked or banned I would be able to believe in Wikipedia and its commitment to producing a reliable encyclopedia. Jagz was one of these editors. In quick succession, the first of the editors was banned, then Jagz was blocked, and then the third POV pusher was given a topic ban to stay out of the articles he was disrupting, and I was just starting to think okay, it looks like maybe Wikipedia is serious after all, and now I will make good on my promise to start editing here if these three editors were banned.

Enter Elonka. I watched in disbelief as Elonka rescued Jagz from being blocked and gave him helpful suggestions on how to game the system. But even under that unbelievably indulgent tutelage, Jagz couldn't help himself and lashed out and was blocked again. I thought okay, that's that; she learned her lesson. But no, here she is again, arguing a simply unsupportable argument that Jagz' problems were caused by people not treating him right, not by his insistence on promoting an agenda that is not supported by reliable sources and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Elonka can't possibly have looked seriously at the history here, or at the content of the articles in question. You really can't determine who is disruptive purely on the basis of conduct; the bottom line for the encyclopedia is content. If Elonka is allowed to have her way with these kinds of issues, it will be the end of the ideal of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia; if this is the direction Wikipedia chooses to go, from now on the only possible future for the project is to be a platform to promote the most dubious, ludicrous and dangerous ideas available today, and to be a laughingstock to people who want an encyclopedia to be a summary of reliable information from reliable sources (a group that comprises most people outside Wikipedia itself).

Woonpton (talk

) 16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Woonpton, thank you for your thoughtful message. However, at the risk of me sounding like a broken record, could you please provide some diffs? Specifically, could you point to some places where Jagz was inserting information into articles that was either (a) unsourced; (b) depending on unreliable sources; (c) misinterpreting reliable sources; or (d) in violation of talkpage consensus? Thanks, --Elonka 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was taken to mediation here. [20] During that period Jagz stopped editing. Because he did not sign up - he was the "major player" referred to by User:Daniel - mediation was dropped. Very soon afterwards Jagz reappeared on WP. Although I hardly edited Race and intelligence, I saw that Jagz made a huge issue over this sentence [21] which rather clearly indicated that the POV he was pushing (that of Murray, Rushton, Jensen and Lynn) was not accepted by mainstream academics. His tinkering with the phrase was against consensus: his versions clearly changed its meaning. [22] Similarly he attempted to introduce material about biomedicine unrelated to the article with a source that didn't even mention biomedicine.[23] On the other hand I hardly edited the mainspace article, so other editors are in a much better position to comment. You might find it helpful having a word with User:Moonriddengirl, the administrator who watched the page for a long period. Mathsci (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if I may be so bold as to remind you that you have trawled through the contribution histories of a number of users for no apparent reason: surely in this case you could apply the same trawling process when there clearly is a reason. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me a moment's frustration. I read through all of the diffs Mathsci posted above, carefully and slowly, and I don't see anything there that indicates Jagz was being racist, disruptive, or even uncivil (well, maybe a couple of points on the last...). in fact, it seems as though Jags was putting in a lot of effort to make a relatively minor adjustment on a passage he thought was incorrect, and ran into a whole lot of seemingly ungrounded and petty interference from a handful of other editors. in particular this] link, in which (apparently) a revert war happened because Jagz tried to add a {{dubious}} tag to a passage, and then Jagz tries 3 or 4 different revisions on the talk page to clean up the problem, with the only responses being things like The sentence makes its point rather clearly and does not seem worth arguing about and Your formulations just say exactly what the current section says, just in a far less legible manner, along with a handful of pov-pusher and troll references. finally, when Ramdrake steps in and Jags agrees that Ramdrakes version of the passage is good, Jagz is accused (bizarrely) of filibustering.

I count 3 mildly uncivil comments by Jagz in this section, and 4 or 5 mildly uncivil comments directed at Jagz (including slrubenstien twice linking

wp:DNFTT). I count 3 times in which Ramdrake (who I take as a relatively neutral voice on this diff) criticized Jagz for making off-topic or personal comments, but Ramdrake seems to have neglected to make any criticisms whatsoever of other editors for equally snappish statements. just based on behavior, this diff seems to support Jagz as a relatively decent editor, and I feel a certain sympathy for him because he looks like he's being badgered - and yet this is offered as criticism? Maybe Jagz is some god-forsaken neo-nazi from hell, but I sure as heck can't draw that conclusion from the material that's been provided here. --Ludwigs2

22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

All those words to say that the point was missed? •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Twenty seconds of homework. Sigh. [24]. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I started calling Jagz a troll when it was evident to me that he is a troll. I waited over a year. If you want to see the evidence, you will just have read all talk concerning race and intelligence from late 2006 to mid 2008. Does this sound like a lot of work? Well, it is up to you, but that is what you need to do to see his pattern of trollish behavior. here is a very mild example: [25]. The comment by itself is irritating and does not violate any single policy. But I am not accusing Jagz of having made one two or even three edits that violated a single policy. i am accusing him of being a troll and what makes him a troll is a pattern of behavior over a more than 18 month period. What is this patten? Ignoring other people's reasoning. refusing to explain his own reasoning. Pushing for the inclusion on one fringe point of view, namely that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. No one edit is a violation of any policy. Wikipedia editors of good faith have to use their judgment. Ramdrake, Alun, myself and others participated in the talk page discussion for years and reached this conclusion. Do you doubt us? Do what we did: read through two years or so of talk. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka and others need to stop wikilawyering and understand that not all conflicts and problems at Wikipedia are caused by single or repeat violations of wikipedia policy A pattern of behavior over a year's period that has a disruptive influence on the discussion is trolling. Ludwig takes my comment out of context. the context is not what happened that day, it is what happened that whole year. Whant to understand why I wrote what I wrote? Do what jagz and others did: follow the whole discussion for over a year. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

slrubenstein: I don't mean any offense - while I disagree with you on a good number of points, I happen to think you're a good editor. However, I wasn't taking your comments out of context; I was taking them in the context you gave, which is the only context I have. Let me be frank: the problems you cite - (slightly modified): Ignoring other people's reasoning. refusing to explain his own reasoning. Pushing for the inclusion on one point of view - are problems I myself experience on a frequent basis with certain well-regarded editors here whom no one is accusing of being trolls. this is endemic to wikipedia. if you want to make the argument that Jagz is a troll (different from these other editors who do the same things), then it's your responsibility to provide an argument that his behavior is significantly above and beyond the pale. don't make it our responsibility to fact-check your accusations: present diffs that put Jagz behavior in context and show the pattern of abuse, show that it's different from the gobs of low-grade crap that we all have to deal with from each other, otherwise I'm just as likely to think that you're overreacting. it's not that I doubt you, but it is your case to make.

Jim: yeah, I'm a talker. it serves me well in academia and the dating world, but no so good other places. and that comment about Mastcell was irritating and juvenile (and MC, in my experience, doesn't do anything to deserve that kind of thing), but by itself might merit a two day block. was that a consistent thing that Jagz did? if so, I'd understand the troll accusations a lot more. --Ludwigs2 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch, you're right, that comment from Jagz was disgusting, and deserving of an immediate block.[26] I said as much when Jagz made it, back in June, and supported his block.[27] I also protected Jagz's talkpage at the time to prevent Jagz was continuing to say anything else uncivil.[28] But it still doesn't make Jagz a troll. Look at the context of that statement, which is that Jagz was reacting to admin MastCell for blocking him. In no way does this excuse the language. But it fails to answer two questions: (1) Why was Jagz indef blocked in the first place; and (2) Why is he indef blocked now? If we're allowing indef blocks of any editor for a couple lapses in civility, well, I've got a list, just let me know, I'll get right on that.  :) Getting back to the definition of the word "troll" though, I think some people here are very confused on just what this term means. Please, I encourage everyone to actually read

WP:TROLL. Even better, read this NY Times article, "The trolls among us," which does an excellent job of explaining what trolling really is.[29] There are some disgusting trolls out there. But Jagz is not one of them. Rude? Sometimes, definitely. Fringe POV-pusher? Maybe, maybe not. Troll? Nope. --Elonka

01:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Trolldom is hardly the only offense for which one can be banned. What I'm seeing from you and Ludwigs is a pathetic attempt to ignore the evidence (and I'll bet you've not trawled yet) and the implicit assertion that, at the very least, Vickers and slrubenstein are, at best, cognitively dissonant, and at worst, lying. Your defense of Jagz is rather troubling given your penchant for warning others for far less serious "crimes". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

well, Jim, all I can say is that I wish we had some darned evidence to ignore. talk about pathetic... You seem to think that you can say whatever nasty thing you want to say about someone, and the rest of us ought to believe it because... because... (please picture me waving my hands around, trying to find a meaningful explanation of this). and NOW you seem to be suggesting that there's some other non-troll reason that Jagz should have been banned for. why don't we just cut to the chase and recognize that you think Jagz ought to remain banned because you don't like him, and any further discussion is simply epiphenomenal to that fact.

I swear, I have never seen so many people who get so up in arms over a simple request for information. If you have evidence to present, take the time and effort to present it. if you don't, what are you doing here? --Ludwigs2 02:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(interpost)I liked the dating comment. :)

Slrubenstein explained to all here what to look at -- as he noted it is not a matter of single instances, it is a matter of a pattern: a pattern that Jagz has displayed for two years. And yes, not being willing to take the time to read through the history and to analyze the data collected is pathetic: unless you, Elonka and others are willing to do the homework nothing will be learned and nothing will be resolved. Think of it as an extension of Academia. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, Jagz was an inveterate pov-pusher, that's something that numerous good faith, experienced and productive editors who had to put up with his behaviour for years have attested to. This is a pattern of behaviour, that means that the provision of a few diffs cannot resolve the situation. Pov pushing is a problem on Wikipedia, it is characterised by an ongoing pattern of behaviour. If Elonka or yourself really were interested in being productive you could have investigated this more thoroughly. Instead Elonka has gone out of her way to imply that a great many excellent editors have "tarred and feathered" Jagz (an unfortunate use of words considering that it was Jagz himself who was promoting racism here), and you, true to form, have jumped in to demand that pov-pushing should be recognised as acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. To be frank you have no understanding of this situation, if you did you would not be demanding diffs, you would know that this man was a serial pov-pusher. You claim to have been the victim of "tag team" behaviour, so you should understand how frustrating it is to make sound edits only to be constantly reverted by someone with a pov to push. When numerous experienced editors attest that a single editor has been disruptive and damaging to the project, I fail to see why it should be these editors who are characterised as a "lynch mob". I don't understand why you feel so strongly about this, but you are speaking from the point of view of ignorance, and that is never a strong position, for example if you doubt Jagz's racist pov all you need do is read the edit summary on this edit: "biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven", that may give you some idea of the pov Jagz is pushing. My own personal problems with Jagz stem from the fact that I wanted to introduce a specific discussion regarding the meaning of Heritability to the article. I had been reading Race and IQ edited by Ashley Montagu. This book is a collection of essays and published scientific papers written by experts in anthropology, genetics, psychology, sociology and other relevant disciplines (for example Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, Walter Bodmer amongst others). Many of these papers discuss the misuse of heritability by researchers promoting racist ideas about "race and intelligence". As there was a book written by a number of world leaders in the field, I though it appropriate to include some of their analysis. Obviously this did not conform to the pov that Jagz and his "tag team" friend Legalleft wanted to push, so they simply removed my edit. This edit was not only sourced, but contained relevant information to the subject. The only possible reason for removal was due to pov-pushing, i.e. it contained a pov that was unacceptable to someone pushing a specific agenda. That was the last straw for me, I could handle Jagz's passive-aggressive attitude on the talk page, but this was beyond the pale, he was obviously determined to subvert Wikipedia to promote his personal beliefs.[30] [31] I was so angry that I left the article for a while and unwatched it. Sometimes it's best to walk away. A little later I tried to make a section dealing with the same subject a little more neutral,[32] by again introducing different points of view. Jagz's response was to slap OR and syn tags all over my edit.[33] This was extremely irritating and seems to have been a deliberate attempt to bait me. Baiting other editors was a strategy of Jagz's, he did it time and again on the talk page, as many people who had dealings with him here have attested. No one is making this up, had Jagz been a cooperative and consensual editor anyone would have been happy to work with him, whatever his personal opinions. But he was only interested in promoting a single point of view, and he went out of his way to remove or diminish any edit that did not conform to his own personal ideology. Those are the facts. Elonka is fretting over so called "civility", but she seems little concerned with the systematic attempts of Jagz to undermine the neutrality and accuracy of Wikipedia. Frankly I think Elonka should get her priorities straight. Civility is not, and never should be, a greater concern than the reliability of Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the discussion I gave the diff for, Jagz does not seem to have answered any question directly. He objected to a sentence (not written by me!) which made it clear that the work of Rushton and Lynn had not been accepted by mainstream scientists. He did disappear during mediation. He did ask Ramdrake about LGBT. He did ask to see Ramdrake's Ph.D. certificate. He did dismiss something I said on the grounds that I was French. He did claim to have retired from editing the article R&I. He did post surreal sections on the talk page of R&I like this [34]. He did insert unsourced and irrelevant remarks about biomedicine. He did forum shop. He also evaded his second block [35] with an edit similar to this one [36], and was blocked by MastCell. Even as User:Fat Cigar he did not edit any non race-related articles.

On the other hand, despite all this, I don't see why he can't be given a third chance as Elonka has suggested [37], with a different mentor than Elonka, who seems a little too personally involved with Jagz at this stage. He might also change his user name at the same time, to give him a fresh start. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Based on my own review, Jagz has effectively been tarred and feathered^[who?]

I've asked Elonka several times to stop making this sort of vague attack on unnamed wikipedians. It's extremely counterproductive, these are weasel words, plain and simple. Elonks has repeatedly claimed that she's in favour of civility, but this sort of comment is not civil and not assuming good faith. I think it's fair to say that Elonks is being far from neutral and unbiased, when she portrays one set of editors as a lynch mob (but refuses to name them) while claiming that an inveterate POV pusher, who has been identified as such by a host of very experienced and productive editors, is somehow the victim here. Elonka's extreme and biased point of view in this situation should clearly mean that she should recuse herself from any dealings involving Jagz, and leave any unblocking to an unbiased admin. Alun (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I believe the result of the appeal should in effect render the discussion moot and close it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent - edit conflict) let me be clear about what I'm doing here. I'm not defending Jagz (whom I have never encountered, and who, for all I know, might be as bad as you all say), and I'm not arguing out of ignorance. I'm arguing out of principle. I know an awful lot about the human mind, enough to know that impressions of people are horribly unreliable guides to their actual nature. an impression of someone is just a story about them, often passed back and forth between people, magnified and abridged and confabulated, until it holds little real relationship to the person in question. did you know, for instance, that 'boogieman' is a corruption of the british 'boneyman', which was originally a reference to Napoleon Bonaparte? I sincerely doubt Napolean himself ever hid under some kid's bed... worse, once a particular impression of someone gets circulated, people start acting as though it were true, and then it becomes truly difficult to see the person or interact with him/her as anything except the impression. I am simply trying to get us all past the impressions of Jagz to look at what he was actually doing.

just to give an example, let me use the edit summary Alun gave above. Jagz changed the heading on the 'history' section of the Race and Identity article to 'African American history', with the summary "predominantly about African Americans and biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven". now, the first part of this summary is correct: the section really was about the history of Africans in America. the second part is also correct, but logically flawed and biased (you can't ever prove that two things are equal; best you can do is demonstrate that you don't have reason to believe they are different). but what I can't tell from it is whether Jagz is actually trying to suggest that some races are unequal, or whether he's being ham-handed in an effort to say that equality is an assumption (me, I would have approached that issue by questioning whether the concept of 'race' was a real distinction or just a social construct). in the next set of diffs that Alun gave (starting here, Jagz makes an innocuous set of edits to shift a paragraph and add the clarifying terms nature and nurture, legalleft makes a very questionable deletion of an entire section [38], Alun reinserts the section [39] with an argumentative edit summary ( what is wrong with you, you really can't stand to see any neutrality here at all can you), and Jagz reverts him[40] with an equally argumentative summary. that strikes me more as a bad reaction than racism. the section itself (at that time) borders on

and then there's this [41], which as Ramdrake said was not in the best of taste, but which seemed more of a joke based on the previous edit (which added a roman Phallic statue).

the impression I'm getting from these new diffs (thank you for supplying them, by the way) is that Jagz is (...comment removed as innappropriate) but I'm still not seeing the overt racism or trollishness being claimed for him. on user pages (like the earlier quote about MastCell and the defacing of Mathsci's page, which were uncalled for) Jagz seems to be prone to losing his cool, but in article content not so much. for instance, he could have easily used the N word instead of saying 'African American history', or he could have said somewhere outright that he thought some races were inferior (which is what I would expect from a racist - they don't tend to be soft-spoken about their beliefs), and he could have done a lot more to goad people. Mostly I see him editing more or less constructively with an irritable attitude, but that is such a normal state of affairs on highly contentious articles that I'm not certain it justifies calling him a troll. but still that's just my impression. see what I'm getting at here?--Ludwigs2 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(to ramdrake) it certainly does that. --Ludwigs2 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't rally think that your comments are relevant. Whether you personally see that jagz was overtly racist or not is irrelevant, whether you think he's poor at communication or not is irrelevant. Indeed an editor being racist is certainly no justification for blocking them, basically I don't care if Jagz is a racist, but I do care when he pushed a racist pov and is not prepared to accept that the views he is pushing are biased and deforming the article. I don't care what you personally "see", we're not talking about your personal impression. Frankly you appear to be willing to interpret any criticism of Jagz as overblown, and appear not to be interested that a large group of editors who actually do have experience with him (which you do not) are saying that his pattern of editing was biased and disruptive. It's odd that you claim not to be writing from a perspective of ignorance, while at the same time admitting that you have personally had no interaction with Jagz. These positions are mutually exclusive. The fact that you have never had dealings with him is proof that you are writing from a position of ignorance regarding his disruptive pov-pushing. As usual you have tried to shift the discussion to something tangential and generally irrelevant to the subject at hand. Jagz was a pov-pusher, that is the subject at hand, I provided the diff regarding his racist edit summary so you would understand conclusively what his pov actually is. I did leave an angry edit summary, I was angry and fed up with the pov-pushing of a set of editors who were prepared to do just about anything to remove any criticism of the position they held. These two editors could and did remove my edit because it did not conform to their personal beliefs, and I had to accept this because I was a single editor against two, so they could always have reverted more times than I could. In the past you have stated that this is "tag teaming". Personally I don't think that Jagz and Legalleft were "tag teaming", I just think they were two editors with the same pov to push who wanted to suppress information that contradicted them. There is no evidence that they were part of a

credibility.[42] You appear to be saying that this is only a "minor" problem. I disagree, pov-pushing is a major problem in Wikipedia, and seriously undermines the project. Your comments about Jagz's edits are also irrelevant, I don't think anyone has claimed that every single edit of his contained no value. A large proportion of his editing at R&I was simply moving large portions of text around, as you point out. While this is annoying and generally pointless, and generally contributed zero to the article, it is not necessarily pov-pushing. What I object to, and strongly, is the removal of well sourced and relevant material from reliable sources simply because it does not conform to the bias of a particular editor. You have in the past claimed to have had similar problems, that editors have removed your edits simply because they did not like the fact that these included a pov that they personally didn't like. As such I'm surprised that you now seem to think that removal of material so an article can give a biased pov is perfectly acceptable. Alun (talk

) 11:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, this was a very long comment but I am summarizing two years of history for you. I am not going to go back and find all the little edit difs, especially when most of them by themselves are innocuous. This is the difference between a troll and a vandal: vandals make edits that are obvious garbage. Trolls work more innocuously, through a pattern of edits that have profound disruptive effects even if no one is a policy violation. The bottom line is simple: Jagz never added anything valuable to the page, he never gave any indication of doing real research or knowing anything about social science or life science. he hung around for two years only to disrupt work on the article and use the talk page to keep pushing his racist views. He added nothing, and took a lot (spiritually I mean) and his being blocked did no damage at all to Wikipedia but removed the principal obstacle to progress on the R&I page. This to me is a no-brainer. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven" speaks volumes. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I confess I haven't read it, but dude, you get the prize for the longest post I've ever seen. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

well, it's too bad I wasn't there for those discussions. I can think of a half dozen theories to balance that kind of opinion, starting with Wallerstein's argument that race is primarily a social construction designed to explain away differences in wealth and status (i.e., it produces less cognitive dissonance to think that that group of people is poor and unsuccessful because they are of a different race, than to think that they're poor and unsuccessful because someone has to be poor and unsuccessful for us to be well-off). probably I'm too soft-hearted, but I hate to see anyone get banned without being absolutely sure there's no other recourse. But since ArbCom seems to agree, and I doubt they would make that decision lightly, I'll just have to grant that there's more going on here than I can see.

and it wasn't that long of a post. --Ludwigs2 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s. oh, and I lived in Baltimore for five years, which taught me volumes about race and prejudice. there's a park there with a statue of US Grant on the north side and a statue of RE Lee on the south side, which pretty much explains everything. --Ludwigs2 00:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can always use help at the article - but honestly, at this stsge we nee dmorehelp researaching articles and books than just editing ...Slrubenstein | Talk 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)