User talk:Boothello: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:41, 13 December 2011

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Boothello! I am WeijiBaikeBianji and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see we are editing some of the same articles.

Hi, Boothello, I see you haven't had time yet to set up your user page. It looks like you are watching several of the same articles I watch, and I look forward to you suggesting sources that will help me and other wikipedians improve the content of those various articles. You may or may not be aware that several of those articles were recently the subject of an Arbitration Committee case that resulted in those articles being subject to active arbitration remedies that continue to this day. I have been pleased to observe that editors who by no means share the same point of view on the underlying issues have nonetheless been able to learn how to communicate with one another and how to verify sources together as we all edit those various articles and improve their quality. I look forward to you keeping an eye on my editing of those articles and welcome you to comment about any of my edits on my user talk page or on the appropriate article talk page. And please suggest sources as you become aware of those—improving the sourcing of articles looks to be one of the best ways to improve most of the 6,823,902 articles on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place for complaint

You put a complaint on the talk page for Race and intelligence, but you were complaining about changes for the talk page for Race (classification of humans). Plus if you want to complain about something like that WP:AN/I is the place to go. Dmcq (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user:Jagiello

Thanks for the information! Unfortunately I do not know who could possibly be the sockpuppeteer. If anyone is. A SPI requires some specific suspicions regarding another editor so I do not think I can start a SPI.Miradre (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

This may be of interest to you. Lionel (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

I commented but it was deleted by Volunteer Marek. You can see it here: [1] Miradre (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci's involvement in race articles

I just asked a member of Arbcom about Mathsci's current involvement in race articles, [2] since Mathsci has promised to permanently stay out of these articles was a condition for his topic ban being lifted in December. I feel that Mathsci's dominating of Miradre's noticeboard threads is unhelpful so I'm notifying some other people who have been involved in those. Risker suggested that this is dealt with in an arbitration amendment thread. I haven't been involved recently, so I don't think I'm the right person to request an amendment. But I think the rest of you might want to consider Risker's suggestion, if Mathsci continues to be this heavily involved.-SightWatcher (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? Personally I think it may be best for now to just inform Mathsci about this discussion and hope that he desists voluntarily.Miradre (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page of Risker for my response. Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how possible meatpuppetry by other affects your promise to stay out of these articles. By posting here you have shown that you are now aware of the issue raised by SightWatcher. I hope you will follow your earlier promise and stay out of the area.Miradre (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boothello has not responded here, despite having edited wikipedia since SightWatcher posted.[3] Presumably there is a completely logical explanation. Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to respond to. An arbitrator has asked you stay out of the topic, and I consider the issue resolved. Curiously, I notice that user:Ramdrake has reverted my edit around ten minutes after you linked to it here, [4] despite having edited very little recently. I wonder if he's being contacted off-Wiki by someone currently involved.Boothello (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you expecting SightWatcher to post a message like the above on your page?

As far as I am aware Ramdrake has been in very poor health for well over a year. It is something of a relief that he is still well enough to edit wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tb

Hello, Boothello. You have new messages at Volunteer Marek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redheylin (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC) answered your note Redheylin (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

informational note about ARBCOMR&I and discretionary sanctions

On the off chance that you are not aware, articles like Race and Intelligence are subject to discretionary sanctions. Please review the section on the ArbCom page for details: [5]. Cheers. aprock (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Aprock's message again, particularly the link. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it a second time, thanks! It might benefit you to read this a second time: [6] Boothello (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue revert-warring and tag-teaming, then that might result in sanctions under WP:AE. I am not under any kind of formal editing restriction, except a self-imposed one on articles and their talk pages. It applies nowhere else, even if you or any of your friends would like to think so. Risker has explained that she has fully recused herself from anything related to the case, although she did vote once on a Request for amendment, perhaps as an oversight; I have privately sent messages about her comments to two members of ArbCom. If you wish to seek further clarification, you or your friend SightWatcher may make a formal Request for clarification. Meanwhile, please stop tag-teaming and edit-warring. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Volunteer_Marek

The nature of your editing is being considered at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Volunteer_Marek with respect to whether your account is a single purpose account which has edited in an aggressive and tendentious way with respect to the topic of race and intelligence. This expansion of the enforcement request resulted from the assertion by Volunteer Marek and others that your account was a single purpose account which edited and otherwise conducted themselves in a POV way. A preliminary look at your history of contributions shows that their contention may have merit. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maunus

This administrator has self-blocked his account for 3 months. Although he has still left himself access to his user talk page, messages there concerning editing which partially precipitated this self-block are unlikely to elicit any response. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Boothello (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBR&I

Hello Boothello. Like TrevelyanL85A2, a real life friend of Ferahgo-the-Assassin, you appear currently to be tracking the edits of User:Volunteer Marek. Recently TrevelyanL85A2 appeared shortly after you, out of the blue, to back you up on the talk page of another article also involving Volunteer Marek. That otherwise inexplicable coincidence, per WP:TAG TEAM, makes it highly likely that you yourself, contrary to what you have said in the past, have a similar relationship with Ferahgo-the-Assassin, editing on her behalf to bypass her topic ban, This strategy of tracking a single editor is ill-advised. (If SightWatcher starts editing out of the blue now, that would only make things look even worse.) You have up until now had no interest so far in the article Race and sports. That article in fact is an expansion of Black athletic superiority and does not fall within the articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. Indeed I have edited it and its talk page. Can you explain your sudden interest in that article? Is it because you did some course closely related to this very material at university? It has certainly nothing to do with pscychology, which was the explanation you have given previously for your choice of articles on wikipedia. At the moment your editing looks like WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Mathsci (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As SightWatcher did on a previous occasion, you left a message on Risker's talk page. You must be aware that Risker is recused from all matters concerning WP:ARBR&I. She has stated this several times in several different places. My voluntary restriction applies only to articles and talk pages. Every now and then something funny happens: in this case TrevelyanL85A2—like SightWatcher identified as a real life friend of Ferahgo-the-Assassin—started tag teaming with you out of the blue and in quick succession. He hasn't edited in that area since January. My voluntary restrictions have never included other parts of project space: that includes monitoring problematic editors, of which TrevelyanL85A2 is one and Mikemikev is another. Most recently I requested a checkuser on Rrrrr5 and a London IP which resulted in the IP being blocked as well as the desysopping and indefinite blocking of Spencer195. If you wish for clarification from non-recused members of ArbCom, that can be done formally or through individual non-recused arbitrators, e.g. Newyorkbrad or Shell Kinney. There seem to be serious problems with your edits, particularly as they relate to the edits of identified friends of Ferahgo-the-Assassin. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were told about Risker's recusal over a month ago. At that stage you seemed aware of the ArbCom case and of other activities on ArbCom pages. [7] Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia email account

Please could you enable an email account? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't email me. Could you please stop commenting here as well?Boothello (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to email you, but it is quite possible that a member of ArbCom might want to email you if you continue adding problematic messages on the talk pages of arbitrators with my username as the header. Given your own editing experience, it is unclear why you would respond in that way (or even know what ArbCom is). SightWatcher made a similar posting once before. At that stage the recipient was unaware that he was acting on behalf of Ferahgo the Assassin. Mathsci (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that if an arbitrator feels like emailing you they will be capable of posting a message all by themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.95.246 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have just made an edit to Talk:Race and intelligence expressing support for the edits of an IP who has just been blocked for one month as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As you are probably aware, this user is banned by ArbCom and in addition community banned. If you appear to be acting as a proxy for this particular banned user, then normally your editing would be sanctioned under WP:ARBR&I, e.g. a topic ban could be imposed (like that of Miradre). Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you once to stop commenting in my user talk. [8] You ignored that request and here you are again. More than half of the edits to my talk page are now from you. Do you refuse to comply with my (polite) request that you stop?Boothello (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a warning is needed, e.g. about proxying for Mikemikev, then I will post here. You do not WP:OWN this page, but you may delete edits as you wish. Mathsci (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mackintosh book

You mentioned Mackintosh's new book on the R&I talk page. Is there much on race and intelligence in it, and is the book completely rewritten or is it basically a reprint of the 1998 edition?--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new book has one entire chapter devoted to group differences (both between races and between nations), around 35 pages long. I don't own the 1998 edition, so I can't easily do a side by side comparison. But the chapter discusses a lot of papers more recent than 1998, so I think it must be updated a lot. It's also distinctly favorable towards the view that racial IQ gaps are entirely environmental, but it's nevertheless one of the more reasonable pro-environmental books I've come across. Mackintosh acknowledges that the debate over the cause of racial IQ gaps is an important one, and unlike Nisbett he doesn't think their cause is known with certainty.Boothello (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As you are a reasonable guy, I would ask you to read my reply to your vote and consider whether I may have a point. Why is the existence of a separate article on Edwards paper an apparent ideological issue now? SilverSeren is grandstanding on a rather trivial issue about which he has limited knowledge - I don't think it makes sense to follow him down that road. You know that I am not interested in censoring or hiding Edwards argument - his argument is of course correct as all sources agree and it needs to be included in the encyclopedia. Just like Lewontin's observation about the heterogeneity of racial groups is correct and is mentioned in all reliable sources. The discussion about what the two arguments means for the understanding of race is however more of an open question with many complexities - it deserves to be treated in detail - together with the two arguments. What do we gain by having separate articles on the papers of Lewontin and Edwards that will have to supply the same basic information in order to be neutral - why not instead treat both article at a central location where the entire argument and its complexities can be presented? Try to think of this as a simple editorial decision ... because that is what it is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this should have been resolved in the AFD. Your argument for merging is essentially the same argument that AndyTheGrump presented for deletion: "To give a single paper in an ongoing debate an article of its own seems to be applying undue weight". There was a long discussion in the AFD about whether that makes sense, and lots of uninvolved people gave their opinion, and consensus ultimately opposed him. Merge was one of the possible outcomes of the AFD, but the AFD wasn't closed as merge, it was closed as keep.

But now the same question has been brought up a second time, and this time almost no one uninvolved is posting in the discussion. Apart from Crusio, all of the "merge" votes are from people that I recognize from their involvement in R&I articles and who tend to support the social rather than biological view of race. Even if your own opinion is just based on policy, I think it was predictable that Mathsci, AndyTheGrump, and Volunteer Marek were all going to support merging this article even before we saw how they voted. It seems like there might also be some cabalism going on, because Volunteer Marek has never edited this article or posted on its talk page before, until he suddenly showed up to vote the same way as the people who generally agree with him about R&I. I can't support a small group of involved editors (with consistently similar viewpoints about this topic) overturning the consensus of a much larger group of uninvolved editors.

Also, I see now that you contacted the people who participated in the AFD, but you were contacting them about an earlier discussion and it was more than a week ago. I doubt they know about the merge discussion.Boothello (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share your view of the situation at AfD or at the current talkpage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hi. Several editors have voiced doubts about your account in the past. You edited the other day when logged off from an IP within 1-2 km of where Danid.Kane (now Ephery) lives in real life. That makes it highly likely, taking into account aspects of your editing history on wikipedia and the laws of probability, that your account is a sockpuppet account of David.Kane. I have mentioned this to at least one arbitrator. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you several times to stop commenting here, and you've been told by both Roger Davies and Cool Hand Luke to stop with this spying business in the R&I topic area. If you really are determined to ignore the advice of two arbitrators, the appropriate course of action is to start an SPI, not accusing me in my user talk. Do not post on my user talk again.Boothello (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Account

Hi. Have you edited under any other accounts? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time no, though I used to edit anonymously before I registered. If you're uncertain or suspicious then please just start an SPI like I suggested in response to Mathsci above.Boothello (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed that you already had substantial experience editing when you joined - you immediately understood terminology and syntax like an experienced user. Can you explain this? Could you give an example of the kind of edits you were making as an "anonymous" user? Hipocrite (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, let's not go down that path- most of what I did anonymously was vandalism and random immaturity. It's a little embarrassing in retrospect. But I still sometimes forget to log in so you can probably find the IP I was using, if you're that interested. I started taking wikipedia seriously last year as the result of a college wikipedia project. This was discussed on-wiki a while ago. It's honestly kind of funny to me that I have more people jumping down my throat now then I did when I was a vandal. It seems opposite from how Wikipedia is intended to work, in that vandals are supposed to be encouraged to reform and become productive editors. Wikipedia has policies about how to address concern about socks, and accusing the person in their user talk isn't one of them.Boothello (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already found the IP you edited from - it had no edits but one. How did you know what OR meant within 2 days and three edits of editing, and how did you understand template syntax in your second edit, exactly, if all you had done was vandalism and immaturity? Hipocrite (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you likely expected, I've reported your behavior to the Arbitration Enforcement board at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Boothello. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 :::Nah, let's not go down that path- most of what I did anonymously was vandalism and random immaturity. It's a little embarrassing in retrospect. But I still sometimes forget to log in so you can probably find the IP I was using, if you're that interested. I started taking wikipedia seriously last year as the result of a college wikipedia project. This was discussed on-wiki a while ago. It's honestly kind of funny to me that I have more people jumping down my throat ''now'' then I did when I was a vandal. It seems opposite from how Wikipedia is intended to work, in that vandals are supposed to be encouraged to reform and become productive editors. Wikipedia has policies about how to address concern about socks, and accusing the person in their user talk isn't one of them.[[User:Boothello|Boothello]] ([[User talk:Boothello#top|talk]]) 04:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 :::: I already found the IP you edited from - it had no edits but one. How did you know what OR meant within 2 days and three edits of editing, and how did you understand template syntax in your second edit, exactly, if all you had done was vandalism and immaturity? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
+As you likely expected, I've reported your behavior to the Arbitration Enforcement board at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Boothello]]. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)