User talk:Captain Occam

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for repeated edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

.

{{unblock|I have literally no idea what recent actions from me this block is based on. I would like to address the block reason, but no specific examples of problematic behavior from me have been provided. I did not receive any warning about being reported for any of the behaviors that are listed as block reasons, as far as I know I haven't engaged in any behavior that warrants a block for the past several months, and I don't intend to do so in the future. I'm also listed as an involved party in the Race and intelligence arbitration case, and have been asked to submit my evidence there sometime within the next few days; being blocked for two weeks would prevent me from doing so. Could an administrator please review whether or not this block is necessary, as well as whether as an involved party in the arbitration case I should be prevented from participating in it?}}

I hope this was not the result of someone lobbying as I rather thought that with the article fully protected the past couple of days some progress was being sorted through at Race and intelligence. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that block was about, either; perhaps it's for some deleted comments? In any case; if you want to provide evidence in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, create a section on your talk page and someone will copy it over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• The following two comments were moved from my talkpage. Please continue discussion here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to clarify your unblock comment. Are you saying that I have permission to contribute to the Arbitration case, but not to edit any other pages?

I’m still not aware of having done anything recently to warrant this block, and no specific examples of problematic behavior from me have been provided. So while I appreciate your allowing me to participate in the Arbitration case, I still object to being disallowed from editing any other pages, if that’s indeed the decision you’re making. There’s been no community discussion about any problems with my recent behavior, or any recent reports about this at any of the administrators’ noticeboards. Can a single admin make a decision to ban a user from all but a small group of pages without any community discussion, and without any warning for the user affected about what behavior from him is a problem? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly right - I have lifted that block for the sole and express purpose of easing your participation at the arbitration pages. You are free to appeal this block through the normal channels, but please in the meantime restrict your edits to your own userspace and the case pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the "normal channels" at this stage? Since I'm no longer officially listed as blocked, I can't make use of the standard template to ask that my block be reviewed. I don’t know how one goes about appealing an unofficial block like the one you’re currently placing on me. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing unofficial about a conditional unblock; it would be unfair to you not to allow your participation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, and unduly convoluted to do it by proxy. Hence, your account is unblocked for only those pages. Do you really not see how your participation over the last few days at Race and intelligence and its associated talkpage and FAQ has included edit warring and otherwise not being nice to and respectful of your fellow volunteer editors? In any case, I believe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the best venue at this stage if you wish to appeal. Obviously, the unblock conditions are relaxed to include your participation at that page or other appropriate venue of your choosing in a thread discussing whether you should be unconditionally unblocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I really don’t. I’ve only reverted both the article and its FAQ twice during the past week, so I obviously haven’t violated 3RR on either of them, and other editors have reverted the article far more frequently during that time than I have. Whether you consider my behavior a problem or not, it’s definitely not worse than that of a lot of other editors who have recently been involved in the article, so I don’t understand your decision to single me out in particular. I also wasn’t aware that it’s normal to spontaneously block an editor without any warning or discussion about it.

What I mean when I say that this block is “unofficial” is that there aren’t any actual restrictions placed on my account; when I comment somewhere that you don’t want me to, you have to revert it manually. I’ll bring this up at AN/I if the feedback I get on Jimbo Wales’ talk page is that this is what I should do, but because of the way AN/I threads that have anything to do with these articles tend to degenerate into pissing contests, I think I’m unlikely to receive any useful response regardless of whether my block was justified or not. That’s why I decided it would be best to ask about this on Mr. Wales’ talk page first. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no software restrictions on your account; this is very different from there being no restrictions on your account. I agree with you that Appeals to Jimbo rarely work, but you are free to make your case there

I found Talk:Race and intelligence as part of an unrelated investigation of potential sock puppetry. I am not convinced that anything should be done in that case, but I saw that the page seemed to be clogged with disputes that were at best incidental to improving the article. You stood out as a primary locus for these disputes, and appear to have been amply warned. I assume that this has some bearing on the current ArbCom case, but will abstain from comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit is not covered by your conditional unblock. Please do not make any edits except to the abovementioned ArbCom case, your userspace, or an appeal to AN/I. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You’ve told me that I could appeal my block, and I know asking about it there is another way this can be done. I don’t think you’re following administrative norms here, and I need someone else’s opinion about this. If Mr. Wales agrees that my comment there isn’t acceptable, then he can remove it himself. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You wish to exercise your right of appeal on that page? Okay, I will put it back. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My history with Occam is only per my recent involvement at Race and intelligence, however, I have to say this is the first block I've seen that provides no diffs supporting the itemizing of disruptive actions. I assume actions at this article are the source of the block (unclear), and I have not seen disruptive behavior on the part of Occam. I don't see what purpose the block has; additionally, editors are attempting to get back to the article and away from the mediation angst, and discussing the mediation/consensus on article talk, so unblocking only for arbitration/meditation is not particularly useful. What have I missed? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As 2over0 has pointed out, I’ve appealed this block by bringing it up on Jimbo Wales’ talk page. It would be useful if editors who are disputing the validity of this block could offer their opinions about it there. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since 2/0 didn't consider it necessary to provide diffs, I have provided a couple at Jimbo's page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See my response there. You’ve demonstrated that I reverted a page twice in one day, and two other editors also did this around the same time. (Neither of whom has been blocked for it.) Two reverts per day is what I generally limit myself to. If this is what you think my block is based on, can you explain how two reverts in a day is grounds for a block? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert twice, and my edit was supported by consensus. You were also warned and your problematic behaviour pointed out several times by different editors. Verbal chat 22:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your two reverts are here and here. Also, unlike me, you refused to discuss your reverts on the talk page even when I was asking you to. It doesn’t matter whether you thought you were supported by consensus or not: when I was trying to get you to discuss your edits, you shouldn’t have just kept reverting while ignoring another editor’s attempt at discussion.

Really, I’m not particularly interested in trying to get you to understand this. Every time we’ve had a content dispute, regardless of what it’s been over or whether your behavior has been worse than mine, you’ve always “warned” me about it. If that’s what this block was over, it’s interesting and a little disappointing to see that an administrator would decide to take sides in this manner, and feel no need to justify their behavior to anyone else when they’re challenged about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The first of those two diffs is an edit, not a revert. These was a long discussion on the article talk page in which you were involved (mostly as WP:IDHT). My edit was backed by the consensus against the consensus you claimed, but that you showed yourself didn't exist. Every time we've had a dispute and you've followed through like this you've ended up blocked, and no one has complained about me. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion that you’re claiming proved that this consensus “didn’t exist” was between me and Arthur Rubin, who ended up agreeing with me about including this part of the FAQ in modified form, and who reverted Aprock’s edit the first time Aprock tried to remove it. For you to state that something agreed on by the only two users who were discussing it was “opposed by consensus” is a pretty absurd distortion of reality. You didn’t start participating in this discussion at all until after you’d already removed the content twice, and I pointed out that your reverting the article while refusing to discuss your edits was unreasonable. And even then, your responses made no attempt to address the policy-based points I was making, as I pointed out in my replies to you.

Please stop commenting here. What you’re doing is basically just gloating over the fact that I’ve been blocked, and implying that this proves you were right and I was wrong, even though almost every user who’s brought up 2over0’s block on his talk page has agreed that it wasn’t appropriate, and the blocking admin is either unwilling or unable to justify it there. The only thing that these comments from you prove is that you approve of sysops using their powers in a manner that they seemingly aren’t able to justify, if by doing so they support your side in a content dispute. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was correcting a mistake in what you wrote about me (2 reverts, which isn't true). I'm not here to gloat and that wasn't my intention, apologies if it appeared that way. I shan't comment here again unless you comment about me or to prevent disruption. Best, Verbal chat 09:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I said I didn't see anything recently that deserved a block. I didn't say that your actions in January–May didn't deserve a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was already blocked for a week in January for violating 3RR. I think I’ve learned my lesson about that; ever since then I’ve generally limited myself to two reverts per day.

Can you provide any diffs of specific edits I’ve made between then and May that you think deserved a ban? As David.Kane said in 2over0’s user talk, it isn’t helpful to simply state that you think my behavior on a particular article deserved a ban, or to make similarly non-specific accusations of “POV-pushing” or “disruptive editing”, because this doesn’t tell me anything about what specific things I ought to be doing differently. But requests for specific examples of problematic behavior from me invariably go unanswered, even when several users were requesting this from the admin who blocked me. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Captain Occam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Although there aren’t currently any software restrictions on my account, I’m still considered blocked and am disallowed from editing any pages that aren’t directly related to my block or to the Race and intelligence arbitration case, so an admin has suggested that I use the unblock template to appeal these sanctions. Prior to this block I was not warned that any of my recent behavior was problematic, and there was no report or community discussion about it. The blocking admin also has not provided any specific examples or diffs of the behavior that he listed as the block reason. Several other users have asked him in his user talk to explain the justification for this block (the thread is at [1]), but he’s failed to respond to any of them. ImperfectlyInformed’s comment there is particularly pertinent as an explanation of what’s wrong with this block, and I also concur with the comments there from David.Kane, WavePart, and Xxanthippe. Could an uninvolved admin to please review the discussion about my block in 2over0’s user talk, and evaluate whether this block is truly justified and necessary, as well as whether the proper process was followed for implementing it?

Decline reason:

As you're technically not blocked, this is the wrong way to go about this. You are under an editing restriction - and you were told from the start that WP:ANI was the correct place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry my advice didn't work, CO; I still don't understand this "you didn't file form 53G-X/5 in triplicate" approach, but at this point I guess ANI is the next step, whether you like that page or not. There are other ways to appeal a block (to ArbCom, to the unblock mailing list), but those work so slowly they only make sense for near-indefinite blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

An unblock request is ONLY for blocks - CO is not blocked, they have an editing restriction, and the process is clearly defined and different. Typically this would follow WP:RESTRICT: "the community may also impose a number of different editing restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior, usually at an administrator's noticeboard. Such restrictions may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary" - which means one would either ask for the restriction to be lifted DIRECTLY with the admin who placed it, or for best results at ANI. This is not a "no, you filled out the wrong form", it's a "you're not blocked!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a topic ban. If you think it is a topic ban, you don't seem, to me, to understand the situation. This is a block, which has been undone only so the user can participate in an ArbCom case. He is "topic banned" from every single page on Wikipedia, except ArbCom case pages, theoretically including ANI and Jimbo's talk page. I won't argue further, as it will serve no point, but this does appear to me to be needlessly bureaucratic. At this point I can see the writing on the wall as well as anyone else, and I'd say ANI is the only practical solution. There's a decent chance that the antimatter version of Bwilkins will reblock you for posting to ANI in violation of your unblock; if that happens, I will likely give up on this ridiculous place in frsutration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm sorry you aren't geting straight answers from anyone. Unilateral topic ban without consensus is something I've been lobbying against for a while, ironically this netted me a arb com decree that I couldn't advocate for a specific editor. Please take care to make su4re all of your edits are above reproach because I think that the same thing will end up happening to you. I'm not encouraging that action, in fact I think that as long as you maintain excellant editing style this will espose the crap for what it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...and for the record, I philosophically agree with both of you, and there's no way in hell I would re-block for asking for a change to what is effectively a topic ban. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tired of pussyfooting around / passive-aggressiveness

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional restrictions on Captain Occam vacated

Review and decision

This is an unusual situation - we rarely impose the type of edit restriction that limits someone to Arbcom case responses only, though it's been done a number of time. The admin who imposed it also has become idle for 5 days. Community "votes" also aren't exactly a standard way of resolving issues with blocks.

Logically - the edit restrictions were a modification to the original block. The place to start in determining what to do going forwards is reviewing the specifics of the original block.

In the days leading up to the block, Captain Occam focused editing on the Arbcom case and on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article. Having reviewed all the threads there, in the days leading up to the block, Occam edited in a manner which was somewhat milder than the prior months, was discussing largely in good faith, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary for the situation currently under arbitration. There were extensive fruitful multiparty discussions going on on the talk page.

The underlying content and behavioral issues at play in the Arbcom case can be seen in the ongoing activity, and perhaps it would be best for all parties if we simply lock the article from editing for the remainder of the case, but the editing slowed down significantly over the last few days (since I full-protected for 1 day on June 8th). It was certainly not worse than prior times.

I believe that the block was done in good faith. However, I believe that in retrospect, nothing was going on at the time of the block that was out of the ordinary or beyond that already subject to normal Arbcom review and needing admin intervention. Admins should not be afraid to enforce policy normally against Arbcom case participants, but we also shouldn't focus overly critically on them. Arbcom will make any out-of-the-ordinary decisions required.

Had there still been an active block I'd overturn it at this point. Given the edit restriction was a replacement for that, I believe that it should just be vacated at this time.

This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors. However, reasonable normal behavior with due respect for the Arbcom case underway is not a problem for the encyclopedia or community.

As an uninvolved admin, having reviewed, I am doing so. The additional restrictions in place on Captain Occam are vacated. I am going to copy this section to WP:ANI, the Arbcom case workshop, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:2over0.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As I've stated I'm new to the article (but not the topic), and did not see any specific behavior requiring intervention—and thought that generally constructive dialog was being had on the part of all (if a bit, but not overly, insistent at times on the part of some), which dialog I hope will continue. Unfortunately, any major progress at the article will apparently need to wait for the current arbitration to complete. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns regarding outing

I do take very seriously any accusations about outing, and intend to ensure that no personal information of yours is intentionally made public at Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm dropping you a line to know that I (or another admin) will happily take action against any violations of our policy.

However, my understanding of outing is that restrictions apply to real-world information and not to on-wiki information, so while it would certainly be a violation of your privacy to post the name of your girlfriend on-wiki, it is not a policy violation to post a user name, or speculate about your real-world relationship with another, named, editor. I realise that this may seem unfair, but look at it this way: so what if people think they know which user you're going out with / friends with / occasionally meet for a cup of coffee with? They don't know who either of you are, or where you meet, or where you live, or any of the personal identifying information that our outing policy is intended to protect. (Remember when dealing with others never to answer speculation, either to confirm or deny.)

If there's anything I'm not aware of, or if this situation changes - if there is any post by another editor that for example introduces a link to off-wiki information that might identify you (or any other Wikipedia user) - then please contact an admin either directly or via WP:ANI and I assure you that action will be taken.

I hope that this answers your concerns on the issue. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel: I am no expert, but my reading of outing suggests that personal information includes, well, personal information, like which editor on Wikipedia (if any) is my girlfriend even if the girlfriend is not identified by name. The simple claim (whether true or not) that I have a girlfriend, like any claim about my personal life, is a violation of WP:OUTING. Isn't that obvious? What if MathSci claimed that I was heterosexual or had 10 children or walked with a limp? That sort of personal information, even if no real names are associated with it, does not belong on Wikipedia. David.Kane (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

David, I've brought up this issue with SheffieldSteel on their userpage, including a few examples of people doing the same thing to you. If you'd like to discuss it with them, I'd recommend doing it there. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

As Race and intelligence is under a 1RR violation, the FAQ is as well, and you have violated it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

CO, you're continued posting on Verbal's talkpage is clearly not welcome by the user - removing a comment from a personal talkpage shows that it was read, and you should not further bait the user. You already have a history there, and your actions there have been noticed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Parties" and "others" sections

• User talk:AGK#R&I Arbcom clerk question [2]

Hi CO. Please see the above link which concerns the location of your comments on the R&I case workshop. If you could remedy this yourself and bear the point made there in mind in future, you'd have my gratitude; I prefer to not have to change others' comments unless absolutely necessary, and I'm guessing you may not have done this on purpose anyhow. Thanks and regards, AGK 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please tell me specifically which comments you'd like me to move? I can think of one that I probably left in the wrong place, but you make it sound like there are more than that. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The size of your evidence

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence#Please_limit_your_evidence_to_a_maximum_of_1000_words_and_100_diffs. Presently, your contribution on the evidence page is already well over the 1000 word limit. While I appreciate that this is a complicated topic, could you please consider whether you could compress your presentation any further? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Would it be helpful if I were to move some of this text to subpages in my userspace, the way Mathsci has done with his own evidence? If so, I can do that also. I've been under the impression that this wouldn't accomplish anything useful, though, both because several of Mathsci's subpages presenting evidence against other users have been labeled as "attack pages", and also because it's still the same amount of text that arbitrators have to look through, regardless of whether some of it is on subpages or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, 1000 words in total would be the best case scenario. However, if you absolutely cannot bring it down to this then compartmentalising onto subpages, or placing any supporting material on the talkpage and linking to it, is probably the next best thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

Before I do this, I need to know the answer to one other question about it: what does and does not constitute an attack page in this context? Several of the subpages that Mathsci has created in order to present evidence against other users have been called attack pages, so if I’m going to move some of my own evidence to subpages, I need to know how to avoid that. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything listed at Wikipedia:Attack page is not okay. Stick to presenting evidence and don't attack whomever personally and it should be fine. Basically, if it's kosher on the main evidence page it's okay for a subpage. Just create the subpage under the main evidence page, and stick a note on the top of it to give some context and inform anyone that stumbles over it that it relates to an ongoing arbcom case, and you should be okay. If you have any dramas just let myself or one of the other clerks know and we'll have a look for you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. One other question: you say that I should create the subpage "under the main evidence page". Does that mean it shouldn't be in my userspage? I was intending to create it in my userspace the way Mathsci did with his own evidence, but if you think it should be a subpage of the arbitration evidence page itself, I'll put it there instead.

Please let me know if that's what you're suggesting. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I’ve gone ahead and created the pages as subpages of the evidence page, since I’m assuming that’s what you meant. Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood you about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No misunderstanding, that's fine. Thanks for your understanding! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment

Remedies 1) and 2) are already written WP policies. Everyone must follow them per WP:RS, regardless to Arbcom decisions. Remedy 3) is simply non-workable and will be rejected. It means no sanctions, which is a good thing because you might end up like me. My advice: stop reverts and edit something else. Sorry.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not rush to assume consensus.

Taking a longer time to discuss sources and what they mean and not rushing so much to assert "consensus" on behalf of edits you like will go a long way to building a better collaborative editing environment for making Wikipedia a truly neutral, verifiably well sourced encyclopedia. Let's discuss further on article talk pages, with longer time limits to respect the busy lives of Wikipedians who work for a living, before assuming consensus for one edit or another. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to realize that thus far, no justification has been provided for Mathsci’s preferred wording in this section, and everybody except Mathsci who’s commented on it thus far has objected to his wording. This was the discussed here and here, and this is the outcome after around three days. The wording that Mathsci has been removing had also been in the article for more than two months, and nobody objected to it until recently; there certainly has never been a consensus for removing it.

When an editor changes the established version of an article without consensus, and after three days nobody has commented on this change with anything other than disapproval, what justification is there for keeping their change in the article? If additional opinions from other editors tilt consensus in a different direction, then the article can be changed again, but at the moment there doesn’t seem to be any argument at all for keeping Mathsci’s changes. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please make an elaborate, detailed case with citations for your revert on the Snyderman and Rothman talk page before reverting.

I've just rolled back your latest revert, because I'm still not seeing a sufficient rationale for your desired change in the article on the face of the article talk page of Snyderman and Rothman (study). As noted, I have the book and the preceding article at hand in my office, and I don't object to the article text on the same grounds that you object to it. So make your case for a change in detail, with citations, on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Snyderman and Rothman

Hi, I've been on vacation this past week. I'll look into Snyderman and Rothman and whatever other R&I articles are being disputed this weekend or next week.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

request for clarification.

I have made a request for clarification which mentions you. Please find the request here: [3]. aprock (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Plans to reform Wikipedia

Hi. Wikid77 here. Many of us will need to work together to reform Wikipedia to no longer "insta-block" cooperative editors, and to define article layouts to plan how editors can work together with areas allocated to each viewpoint. When I saw the recent ArbCom R&I ruling, with a conclusion to topic-ban someone of your caliber, dedication, and civility, then I knew Wikipedia is currently unable to handle real collaboration. The slightest disagreements tend to snowball into WP:ANI or ArbCom, and the result is often official declaration of "do nothing" as an idea for progress. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Their topic-ban tactic, in the past, has worked for most hollow, simplistic articles, but when more people want to expand NPOV coverage, with indepth explanations, then WP policies must be changed to have article "architectures" which designate how people can work together. This reformation of Wikipedia can be done by "force of consensus" which, in practical terms, means getting enough people working together to share the workload and show how people can work together using other policies. With Jimbo's waning participation as emeritus, then other senior officials will need to be considered. Some issues to resolve:

• Beyond invalid POV-forks, articles must be split as valid POV-spinouts, to reduce edit-wars. Give each opponent a subarticle, and problems are reduced greatly.
• Not only the dangers of POV-forks, but also "POV-funnels" must be explained as one-article battlegrounds. When someone fears "That's a POV-fork" the response should be even more fear of the current article as a POV-funnel, too small for fair explanations of issues.
• Various types of article layouts ("blueprints") must be explained as plans which show users how to edit together.
• ANI bans must focus on WP:Gaming the system and WP:Wikifinagling as the dangers, rather than fear barking with WP:NPA. Explain: a dog's bite is much worse than a bark.
• Sanction people by issuing demerits, not 2-week blocks, which can total to multi-hour blocks or 2-day blocks, not months.
• Proposed changes can be made "official" by posting in the Strategy Wiki, then used in Wikipedia.

Despite the workload needed to reform Wikipedia, by spreading the effort among numerous interested editors, then changes can be combined to achieve a "critical mass" of enough people working to reform the system. No one needs to sacrifice every day of their lives to change Wikipedia. This message is just an early step in the process. Examples can be developed in other areas where people are not topic-banned (yet). -Wikid77 (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What you’re suggesting sounds like it could work, but I don’t understand exactly how you’re intending to go about changing these things. Unless you’re able to convince the majority of Wikipedians to support these proposals, isn’t it likely that subarticles with different points of view are still going to be deleted as POV forks? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it would probably take over 20 diligent users to "argue the case" in some situations. As you know, many users don't actively censor articles: it is a relatively intense few. The new editcount tool "articleinfo" counts how many people edited an article, and usually the top few are in the edit-wars. When I was topic-banned 3 months from discussing "Amanda Knox" (and related), I was only #9 among 640 editors, with the top 4 in edit-wars, as listed by tool articleinfo:

• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=Murder+of+Meredith+Kercher&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=

Naturally, the editors favoring more information will out-number the censors (people even ask questions to be answered from a talk-page), but there are tricks to stop them, such as closing an AfD at 7 days when Delete seems higher, but leaving an AfD open 3 weeks when most early posts are favoring "Keep". Also, many battles formerly lost, have been very close to being won. I was surprised (for the AfD of "How Much can We Boost*") when the closing admin noted the decision to delete was "just" tipping a balance. In that case, a key issue not in the AfD was the consideration to have far more space to explain the positive+negative reception of that article, and reduce the controversial text in other articles. By not splitting to a separate article, then the How-Much issues were becoming WP:UNDUE weight: such as Harvard people claiming they didn't request race-based ideas, while others had evidence to the contrary (that level of detail definitely approaches WP:UNDUE in other articles). Another issue omitted from the AfD: a 123-page article is like a small book, hence the need for separate coverage to summarize 123 pages of text. Compare that to Einstein's papers spanning just a few pages. Also, Einstein advocated separate education for tradeschool-oriented people, and so Time magazine's "Man of the Milennium" had some ideas similar to those. However, I realize you can't respond to those specific issues (as topic-banned), but the point is to realize Wikipedia is ready for reform, and formalize issues listed in AfD. In many cases, it is just a matter of broadening the number of people involved. Long term, we need to change the AfD process:

• No longer allow non-votes Delete/Keep, but focus AfDs on issues, with sections for NPOV, BLP, WP:UNDUE, POV-funnel (etc.) where people help debate those points, not push the total fate with !non-votes.

Never forget we have many intelligent people here, living in the shadows, but open to major improvements. Jimbo might be too busy, with Wikia and 500 other issues about new wiki-topic websites, but the Strategy Wiki clearly notes the editor-burnout problem and is asking for new ideas. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don’t think I understand what it is specifically that you’re hoping I could do to help you, but if there’s an article or discussion somewhere that you’d like me to become involved in, feel free to suggest it. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I guess, at this point, I was just mentioning several issues which all require some level of reform. I understand that it appears to be a rambling collection of ideas. I was planning to ask you to help fix the poor-quality articles on "High IQ" but I fear the subject might be too close to R&I, so I don't know. Also, I'm not sure what resistance would be found in editing IQ articles: they are ironically "low quality" about "high IQ" which makes me think of the adage about "high in book learning, but low in common sense". However, that is another factor to beware: WP might be creating "nerdlines" as guidelines, while foolishly unable to focus on policies which foster progress on expanding coverage of knowledge. Proper management tries to combine good practices and good products, with good people, but it could be debated that sensible people would never let policies become so vicious (or wikipetty). In fact, WP's love-hate relationship with "primary sources" is just another area of questionable judgment, along with the misperception that all synthesis is banned (not true), but people are afraid to suggest "2+2=4" and so the overall censorship is very, very, very bad. Anyway, at this step, the various ideas form a "consciousness raising" that the system needs several simple reforms, but some of them might not be so simple to implement in some cases. I'm raising "things to ponder" but I will try to focus on more tangible issues soon. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the changes in the William Beebe article.

Hi, Captain Occam, the article probably won't be on my watchlist, but perhaps some day I will have occasion to surf by the William Beebe article. He had quite an interesting career, which I remember reading about in childhood, and it will be good to have a well sourced article about him here on Wikipedia. Here's wishing you all the best as you find articles that interest you among the 6,823,518 articles on Wikipedia, nearly all of which need substantial editing of one kind or another. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration enforcement

A thread concerning your involvement in the recent arbitration of the race and intelligence dispute has been started here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Captain_Occam. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

This is to notify you of this request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam

Arbitration amendment

A thread concerning your involvement in the recent arbitration of the race and intelligence dispute has been started here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Race_and_intelligence. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding

I don't think you'd be able to convince many people that this is wikihounding. The issue of the Black Panther article already came up during the ArbCom case. When you say that "you cleared up with ArbCom" that the article wasn't covered by the topicban - that sort of bypasses the fact that several people mentioned that they would rather have seen you edit articles that didn't need any clearing up at all - articles that are clearly and unequivocally unrelated to issues of race and racial tensions. I think that writing the article was not a particularly smart move and I actually don't blame Muntuwandi for wanting to keep an eye on how it was going - I don't agree with the way in which he approached the issue with accusations right away. For me wikihounding would cover a somewhat longer term patttern of following around, and also a kind of following around that wasn't motivated by a genuine concern over the quality or type of a particular editors edits. I don't think muntwandi's behaviour fits that description, yet. It might turn that way, but I actually don't think so. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks for getting back to me about this.

I think I probably should explain why I created this article so soon after the arbitration case, despite having been advised against that. This wasn’t what I originally had been intending to do—I had been planning to create the article eventually, but not this soon. The reason I changed my mind about this is because in September there were a lot of major developments in this case, which resulted in a huge increase in both the press coverage it was receiving, and by consequence also its notability. As of earlier this month, the Black Panther case might be the largest current political controversy in the United States. With that in mind, Wikipedia needed an article about this case as soon as possible, but nobody else was creating one. Eventually I decided that in this situation, the good of the encyclopedia ought to take priority over the advice I’d been given.

None of the other articles I’m hoping to work on here have anything to do with race, though, so this will probably be the only race-related article I get involved in for at least a few months.

I have one other question: I remember that during the arbitration amendment thread about Ferahgo, you were suggesting that Muntuwandi be topic banned from race and intelligence articles, [4] and the reason you gave was that his behavioral problems which had existed before the arbitration case hadn’t improved. I’m guessing that this has to do with how he treated Ferahgo while she was involved in these articles, but your comment in the amendment thread sounds as though it’s referring to more than just that. Would you mind telling me what specific behavior from him you were referring to? The reason I’d like to know this is because if Muntuwandi is still going to be involved in some of the same articles as me, I’d like to have a clear idea of what sort of behavior from him you think is and isn’t acceptable. I generally trust your judgment about this, so having a better understanding of what you think does and doesn’t cross the line from him would be helpful to me as I’m interacting with him in the future. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

He has a long history of editwarring and sockpuppeteering and generally being disruptive at race related articles - he has been sanctioned several times before - including two indef blocks (one was overturned the other pardoned). He has promised to behave and I do believe in giving second chances - but I think that his behavior in the R&I topic does look uncomfortably like his old behavior patterns. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Heilmann's Origin of Birds

I'm beginning to work on an article for Gerhard Heilmann's famous The Origin of Birds, and I thought you might be interested in lending a hand. If you would like to help contribute to the source list, feel free to add sources here. Thanks! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi, Captain Occam, I see Victor gave you some good advice in response to your question to him. Not knowing the basis of Victor's comment, I'll simply add that it is important to be respectful of the ArbCom sanctions, as several editors have said. For the record, my email link is always open for any editor who desires to use it to discuss my conduct or to discuss any article on Wikipedia. I may or may not reply by email, just as I never expect any editor to be obligated to reply to me, however I contact the other editor. I also welcome comments on my user talk page from any user who is not site-banned. One constructive thing we can all do—and you have kindly already provided an example of this—is to suggest sources to other editors. It's good for all of us editors to continue to read broadly in the sources on subjects of interest to us, the better to gain a comprehensive understanding of the topics of articles. I definitely agree with Victor that sources have to be checked carefully, cited accurately, and used in articles in light of the other published literature on the subject. It's a great learning experience for me to work with editors who put me to my proof and insist on my citing sources for any statement in article text that isn't self-evidently true. One very good piece of advice that the Arbitration Committee gave to some editors specifically, and to all editors implicitly, is to be active in the featured article process, and it seems to me that any Wikipedian can do a lot for the good of the project by looking for featured article candidates, perhaps on topics with which that Wikipedian was previously unacquainted, and digging into sources and participating in editor discussion to improve those articles. I hear tell that that is one of the best ways any editor can make a good impression on other editors while selflessly contributing to the project. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Captain Occam Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)