Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:21, 16 June 2008

Hello

Sorry to break your retirement (which is evidently a semi-retirement anyway). I used to edit a lot of physics-related articles, fighting crackpots and the like, as well as trying to remove intelligent design garbage from evolution articles, so I know how tiring fighting on Misplaced Pages can be: it is a constant - and losing - battle against sophistry.

Please feel free to build up the new article in my userspace...it is a huge task, but I think the current one is broken beyond repair. --Plusdown (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Awarded for conspicuous gallantry in sticking to reason and the facts in the face of (t)rolling barrages of fallacious reasoning followed by lily-livered ad hominem attacks, only for the attackers to run for cover behind their superior officers once things get a bit scary. I hope you keep your morale up. Misplaced Pages desperately needs reasonable people, and the article in question even more so. It shouldn't be like this. --Plusdown (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication

Hiya, just wanted to offer that if you see something else that you really want to bring to an admin's attention, feel free to contact me directly, or send me an off-wiki email (elonka@aol.com), and I'll take a look. What I think is best at this point though, is to try and wipe the slate clean, and work on actions from this point forward, rather than bringing up concerns about past actions. Ideally you can just remove R&I and related pages from your watchlist for a few months, but I know that's tough to do. If you slip, and feel that something isn't being addressed that really should be, feel free to let me know, and I'll take a look. :) Best, Elonka 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikinfo

The site looks like an interesting effort, though I'm sure it'll have its set of issues. --Zero g (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the powers that be finally decided there was enough momentum to perm ban you. They don't like trouble makers (read criticism) on Misplaced Pages. I think it's because criticism is often seen as a personal attack, and that's a big no no. On the other hand Misplaced Pages is a great tool to learn self censorship. Feel free to drop me a line at wikinfo if you want to work on an article together, editing in complete isolation isn't much fun. --Zero g (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advise editors to stay away from controversial articles on Misplaced Pages because they will be held to the same standards as the editors doing articles on petunias and oak trees for example. The editing atmosphere is much more challenging. One reason I decided to work on the R&I article is that it was controversial and I had just essentially finished working on another controversial article. I was also somewhat intrigued by the group of editors who appeared to be guarding the article in a POV manner. I'll keep your Wikinfo offer in mind. I'm worn out right now. --Jagz (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci retired

--Jagz (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Your pattern of long-term tendentious editing has exhausted patience and resulted in warnings, probation, topic bans, etc. It's been a long time since anything constructive originated from this account. Since you've now stooped to gloating in the departure of an editor you dislike to the point of vandalizing his userpage (, ), it seems to me that you've reached a point where no further positive contributions from your direction can reasonably be anticipated. I've blocked this account indefinitely. You are welcome to appeal the block by the usual means if you see fit. MastCell  08:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chesire cat image was meant for Mathsci when he logged in next time. As you can see in the diff I provided above, Mathsci was actually the one who added the Chesire cat image in reference to me leaving originally. I did it in jest only. --Jagz (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have put it on his Talk page instead but I did that later . --Jagz (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with an indefinite block and feel that it is excessive. Jagz does have a history of constructive contributions, though it's true that his behavior has deteriorated somewhat over the last few weeks. I would point out though, that if he hasn't been actually editing articles, it is because he voluntarily agreed at ANI to avoid editing articles in a certain topic area for the rest of the year. I am not seeing the "vandalism" that he is being accused of. Mathsci had placed a "cheshire cat" image in a previous conversation with Jagz, and Jagz responded by putting the cheshire cat image on Mathsci's page (granted, he should have put it on the talkpage, not the userpage). It may have been an ill-considered attempt at humor, but it wasn't vandalism. --Elonka 14:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, this user seems to have descended into a mode of disruption. I think the block serves a valid purpose. However, if Jagz would like to edit again, I would consider unblocking if they undertake to focus on article space, and to avoid negative personal interactions. All recent contributions seem to involve drama mongering and polite trolling. That stuff needs to stop. Jehochman 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "trolling" is a strong one, Jehochman, and I do not think it applies here. However, some of your other suggestions are good. Jagz, if unblocked, would you be willing to promise to get back to constructive editing in article space, instead of just haunting users' talkpages? I (or anyone else you choose as a neutral party) would still be available to deal with areas where you had concerns. However, I think you made some good edits in the past, and I would like to see you able to return to that. --Elonka 02:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been out drinking tonight and will have to consider this tomorrow. --Jagz (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an ANI thread reviewing the block, which can be read here. --Elonka 13:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that Slrubenstein's motive with all his incivilty, name calling, and constantly adding the link WP:DNFTT to the "Not feeding the trolls" section was to goad and provoke me so as to precipitate an event such as this. Mathsci constantly taunted me and went out of his way to disrupt my good faith efforts probably for the same reason but also to keep me from making any progress out of spite. Ramdrake is best described by WP:BAIT. Is there no justice and how is this effort not simply a kangaroo court? --Jagz (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to try and focus the discussions here a bit. One potential path is "seek action against other editors", which would require that you provide some diffs of specific misdeeds. However, an easier path would be, "Let Jagz get back to editing", which could probably be done pretty quickly if we could line up some conditions and you would agree to mentorship. Or we could try to do a combination of both, but then that's going to draw out the block. It's really up to you though: What do you see as the ideal outcome here? --Elonka 19:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how leaving a cat image was that big of a deal, especially when the recipient knew why I did it. A bit annoying perhaps but that is all. Certainly I was a bit annoyed when he posted the image in reference to me. Can't we have a little fun in all this? I'm also being censured for honestly saying that I don't think an editor would make a good administrator at this time. I don't wish to be muzzled. At this point, I can't see myself having the desire to do any more editing in the foreseeable future. The atmosphere has become too stuffy for me. --Jagz (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If unblocked, would you be willing to agree to avoid the talkpages of the R&I editors? They leave you alone, you leave them alone? All parties would still be welcome to come to my talkpage if there were any concerns, but you'd stay off of each other's pages? --Elonka 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I will distance myself further from that situation. I didn't have any significant problems prior to getting involved with that article last fall. --Jagz (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that all I'm seeing is Talk page/discussion diffs? Where is the evidence that I disrupted the actual articles? --Jagz (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Stay cool.  :) Also, would you consider removing the "retired" banner? Oh, and are you on IMs? --Elonka 23:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the banner. By IM you mean instant messaging like Yahoo for example? --Jagz (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm on AIM, Yahoo, MSN, and Google. You (or anyone else reading this page) is welcome to send me a message at any time.  :) --Elonka 00:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jagz!! I see you are now interested in my motives! Well, all you ever had to do was ask! Why did I insert the DNFTT avery time you made a disruptive comment? no, it was not to goad you. I assume you are an adult and not a child and capable of controlling yourself. My motive was simple: I saw that every time you made an inane comment Ramdrake, Alun, or someone else who write - sometimes at length - a serious response to you. These responses soon came to repeat themselves; i.e., since you didn't care about the first time another editor explained his (or her?) views, and just kept making the same silly point or asking the same inane question, Ramdrake and Alun and others were just repeating the same explanations about genetics and biology over and over again. The first few times they repeated their explanations to you I thought they were being nice, but after about the fourth or fifth time I saw them explain - patiently and civilly - the same thing to you I realized they were wasting their time and, more importantly, this was slowing down progress on the article. Clearly they happen to know a lot about the topic, and they could have been adding their well-researched knowledge to the article itself rather than repeating it over and over again in response to your endless and repetitive challenges on the talk page. I wanted to change their behavior - I wanted them to work on the article instead of waste time on the talk page. That was my motive. I didn't want to have any effect on you; I did hope to have an effect on Ramdrake and Alun and others. Sadly, they still ended up spending more time writing to you than working on the article .... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Jagz has suggested that I used the WP:DNFTT link in order to goad him. I wrote the above explanation in order to make clear that my motivation was not to goad him. Since the editor below, and another, believe that my explanation is a further goad, I have struck it out. i hope it is clear that my intention has not been to goad Jagz. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This comment seems like "goading" to me. Wouldn't it be best to leave Jagz alone and get on with the writing that you say you want to do? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For some reason user Epf seems to be unhappy here: --Jagz (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]

Moving on

Jagz, assuming that MastCell is amenable to lifting the block (or allowing me to do it), have you given thought to where you would next like to participate on Misplaced Pages? Are there any non-race-related articles that you would like to expand? If you could state what you'd like to do next, after being unblocked, I think it would help de-escalate the situation. Thanks, Elonka 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found the experience of the last several weeks to be stressful and therefore I will not be editing any articles again until the mood strikes me and I develop an interest in something. --Jagz (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If I can make a suggestion, I find it helpful, and fairly therapeutic, to work on some cleanup categories, such as Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. They also serve an additional benefit, in that usually when working on a disambig page, I am directed to other pages that are badly in need of additional eyes. There's definitely a lot of work that needs to be done on Misplaced Pages, so any efforts you can provide, would be appreciated. --Elonka 03:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When the time is right, I will look into it. Thanks. --Jagz (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of disruptive editing

Given the latest accusations by Ramdrake and others that Jagz engaged in disruptive POV editing I've compiled some links to the behavior of Ramdrake, who is often assisted by users (Wobble and Slrubenstein to name a few) who assist him to push through controversial changes by edit warring and lengthy 'consensus' discussions on talk pages.

In the following diffs you can see Ramdrake engaged in adding unsourced contested changes, as well as the blatant removal of entire paragraphs as well as various sourced statements. In the R&I article this has led to the removal of sourced information about racial differences in brain size (Asians having slightly larger brains than Europeans, who in turn have slightly larger brains than Africans), and other important information / hard facts required for a good understanding of the subject.

Ramdrake reverting sourced edits by Rubidium37

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dysgenics&diff=212942857&oldid=212927794

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=212479815

Rubidium37 gets a Weird block by Dreadstar who is often involved in R&I disputes, mainly by threatening mostly genetic editors and ignoring rude behavior by mostly environmental editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rubidium37

Ramdrake reverting (one of many) the removal of the unsourced POV introduction he wrote, and which currently remains due to effective edit warring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dysgenics&diff=208032370&oldid=208008558

Edit warring to remove large sections of well referenced material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dysgenics&diff=208544419&oldid=208522522

Ramdrake also engages in a form of meat puppetry, by inviting users with a known POV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AWobble&diff=208747043&oldid=207537512 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Slrubenstein&diff=prev&oldid=208909181

Very uncivil post by Alun that completely crosses the line (User:Wobble)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARace_and_intelligence&diff=214990492&oldid=214934699

Conclusion:

These users engage in borderline vandalism tendentious editing, and I find it highly amazing that they accuse Jagz of disruptive editing and inserting false information. --Zero g (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs; however could I please ask you to refactor terms such as "vandalism" and "meat puppetry"? See WP:VANDAL#NOT. What you are describing may be referred to as tendentious editing, POV pushing, disruptive behavior, harassment, edit-warring, personal attacks, and other things, but it's still not vandalism. Thanks, Elonka 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest mentorship for Slrubenstein as an administrator because he needs to set an example for others to follow. --Jagz (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The act of inviting biased non Wikipedians to a conflict is called meat-puppetry, but apparently inviting biased Wikipedians is called differently. How would one go about politely describing the act of inviting friends to a conflict to engage in pov-pushing? --Zero g (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I comments

There are a lot of comments being made about me on the AN/I Board that I would like to reply to but don't feel it is appropriate to do so at this time. --Jagz (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Jagz, I am happy to report that consensus has been achieved at ANI for you to be unblocked.  :) I'll be doing this shortly after posting here. However, it is important that you understand that this unblock comes with conditions, specifically:

• Complete avoidance of race-related articles (including their talkpages) for the rest of the year.
• Avoidance and disengagement with opposing editors from those pages. That means no snide remarks (or images), and it also means that you cannot pursue any vendettas "on-wiki" at administrator talkpages. I will offer that you are welcome to send an email or IM to me if you have concerns, but you must completely avoid direct contact, both on-wiki and off-wiki, with the other opponent editors, including Slrubenstein, Mathsci, Alun/Wobble, Ramdrake, et al. They are also being instructed to leave you alone, as well. If you have a question about whether you are or are not allowed to participate somewhere (such as at an RfA), please ask an uninvolved admin such as myself.

I realize that it's tough to entirely switch tracks from editing in a certain topic area, to something else, but I am confident that with time, you will find something else that catches your interest. You have done many excellent things in your years on Misplaced Pages, and I am confident that you will continue to do excellent work in the future.  :) Also, remember that the topic ban is only for six months, so in 2009, as long as you are careful about how you do it, you can return to editing in the race-related topic area. In the meantime, if you are looking for something to do, there are definitely lots of things to be done on Misplaced Pages, such as helping out at cleanup categories, improving needed articles, adding needed stubs, or even helping out in other areas where a third opinion could be useful.

Welcome back, Elonka 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)