Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WeijiBaikeBianji: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:46, 22 November 2010

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC).

WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

Over the summer, there was an arbitration case [1] about articles related to the topic of race and intelligence. The case ended with several editors being topic banned, and discretionary sanctions being authorized. However, since the end of the case, the disputes over these articles have intensified again, and WeijiBaikeBianji appears to one of the main users responsible for this.

Creating this RFC/U was suggested by Coren, one of the arbitrators. [2]

Desired outcome

That WeijiBaikeBianji either disengage from these articles entirely, or limit his participation to making suggestions on talk pages. Even if he eventually stops the specific examples of problematic behavior described here, the behavior similar to this that he’s engaged in over the past three months has been consistent enough that he does not appear able to edit the articles in accordance with Wikipedia policy. He may also have a conflict of interest on some of them, which also suggests he should disengage.

Description

For almost three months, the user WeijiBaikeBianji has engaged in a pattern of behavior on these articles which involves repeated edit warring, removal of sourced content without disucssion, and controversial renames of articles without discussion, for the apparent purpose of pushing a point of view. At least eight other editors have expressed concern over his behavior on the various articles where it’s occurred, but his behavior has not improved. He may also have a conflict of interest on some of these articles.

There have been too many examples of problematic behavior from him for me to list them all, so I will outline three groups of edits that I think exemplify the problems with his editing. The first of these began in August and ended in September, the second began in August and lasted until early this month, and the last began in October and is ongoing.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Example #1: Mass renaming of articles without discussion

On August 25, WeijiBaikeBianji proposed that the article Race and intelligence be renamed to “Group differences in IQ by race”. [3] He did not obtain a consensus for this. One reason why his change was opposed was because his proposed title was not parallel to other similar articles. Victor Chmara pointed this out here: [4] “There are articles with titles similar in form to Race and intelligence, including Sex and intelligence, Race and genetics, Race and crime in the United States, and Race and health in the United States. What articles are there with titles like ‘Group differences in X by Y’?”

On September 8, WeijiBaikeBianji renamed four such articles without any prior proposal or discussion, giving them names similar to his proposed name for Race and intelligence.

[5] Height and intelligence becomes “Group differences in IQ by height”.
[6] Sex and intelligence becomes “Group differences in IQ by sex”.
[7] Religiosity and intelligence becomes “Group differences in IQ by religiosity”.
[8] Health and intelligence becomes “Group differences in IQ by health”.

Within an hour after his four undiscussed renames, WeijiBaikeBianji proposed once again on the Race and intelligence talk page that Race and intelligence be renamed to “Group differences in IQ by race”. [9] This time, the justification he gave for the rename is “for parallelism with other subarticles of Intelligence quotient”- that is, for parallelism with the titles of the articles that he just unilaterally renamed less than an hour earlier in order to match his preferred title.

During the course of this discussion, one of the editors who disagreed with the proposed rename for Race and intelligence pointed out that there were still articles with names that were consistent with this article’s current name, giving Fertility and intelligence as an example. [10] In response, within a few hours WeijiBaikeBianji renamed that article also. [11]

On September 10, Victor Chmara reverted WeijiBaikeBianji’s undiscussed renames, and berated him for having failed to initiate any discussion about any of these changes beforehand. [12] Yet despite other editors giving him a clear message that doing this was not acceptable, he made yet another undiscussed rename to an article on September 12, [13] this time renaming Race and genetics to “Genetics and the decline of race”. When this rename was discussed on the Race and genetics talk page, [14] five editors agreed that the new title was inappropriate and non-neutral.

Example #2: Apparent conflict of interest on articles related to high IQ societies

From August to October, WeijiBaikeBianji nominated five articles for deletion that covered high IQ societies (which are groups like Mensa for people with above-average IQs). The articles were:

Epimetheus Society [15] (Deleted without an AFD discussion, so I can only link to his notification post about it)
Top One Percent Society, [16]
Cerebrals society, [17]
International High IQ Society, [18]
Intertel (group) [19]

All of these deletion attempts except the one for Intertel were successful, although most of these articles had very few people watching them, so there was very little discussion about whether the deletion was appropriate.

Over the same period of time, WeijiBaikeBianji was gradually removing sources and information about these societies from the High IQ society article, which is about these societies in general.

[20] Removes one source on July 11.
[21] Removes six sources on July 14.
[22] Removes one source on July 18.
[23] Removes one source on August 17. (Note that he identified the addition of this source as “vandalism”!)
[24] Also August 17: immediately undoes the revert of his previous source removal.
[25] Removes four sources on October 1.

On October 26, after having removed a total of 13 sources from the High IQ society article, he nominated the article for deletion. [26] His stated reason for nominating this article for deletion was based on a “lack of reliable sources”. He continued to give this as a reason for advocating deletion throughout the AFD: [27] “Meanwhile, where are the sources”? The answer is that the sources were in the article until he removed them, sometimes edit warring to do so.

During the course of the AFD [28], it was pointed out that WeijiBaikeBianji is affiliated with Mensa, and has been attempting to systematically remove coverage of Mensa’s rival societies from Wikipedia. WeijiBaikeBianji’s userpage stated (and still states) "I speak at National Association for Gifted Children-affiliated state organizations, for Mensa, and for other nonprofit organizations on the topics of mathematics education, organizing support networks for parents, and IQ testing." Four different editors pointed out in the AFD that WeijiBaikeBianji appeared to have a conflict of interest on these articles and should disengage from them.

However, WeijiBaikeBianji did not disengage from them. Within 24 hours after his AFD for this article was closed as “keep”, he resumed attempting to remove information about Mensa’s rival societies from the article.

[29] November 2, reverted a few hours later by Andy Dingley [30]
[31] November 5, reverted a four hours later by Andy Dingley [32]
[33] November 5, immediately undoing Andy Dingley’s revert- he got his way by edit warring in this case.

Four days after his AFD for High IQ society was closed as keep, he also removed the link to this article from the Human intelligence template. [34] His desire to get rid of links to articles that he dislikes is the focus of the next dispute.

Example #3: Edit warring over templates and links

For a little over a month, WeijiBaikeBianji has been repeatedly removing the template Template:Human_intelligence from articles, as well as removing the link to the Race and intelligence article from this template and from other articles and templates. Usually when he removes this link he replaces it with a link to History of the race and intelligence controversy, even though in most cases the articles where he’s replacing the link are discussing the current debate over race and intelligence, not the history of the debate. I’m including all of this together because it’s all being done for the same reason. He’s stated here [35] that his reason for removing this link from the Human intelligence template is because he’s not satisfied with the current state of the Race and intelligence article, he’s said here [36] that this is also his reason for removing links to this article from other articles, and he’s said here [37] that his reason for removing the template itself from articles is because he thinks some of the articles in the template “are hardly in shape today to be prominently linked by other articles.”

WeijiBaikeBianji has made very little effort to actually improve anything about the Race and intelligence article, either by editing it himself or by suggesting specific changes to other editors. Based on this, his objections to the race and intelligence article being linked to appear to be primarily Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. He also generally does not engage in any discussion about these changes to links and templates, either when he first makes them or when he undoes other editors’ reverts of them.

Removing the link to Race and intelligence from the Human intelligence template

[38] October 16 (removing by commenting out), reverted a few hours later by Woodsrock [39]
[40] October 17 (immediately undoing Woodsrock’s revert), reverted a few hours later by Woodsrock [41]
[42] November 5, reverted 5 days later by Woodsrock [43]
[44] November 17, reverted a few hours later by me [45]
[46] November 19, reverted a few hours later by Woodsrock [47]
[48] November 20, reverted a few hours later by TrevelyanL85A2 [49]
[50] November 21, reverted around 12 hours later by me [51]

Removing Human intelligence template from articles

[52] October 17, reverted 11 days later by Miradre [53]
[54] October 24, reverted around 10 minutes later by Miradre [55]
[56] November 5, reverted around 5 days later by Woodsrock [57]
[58] November 5, reverted around 5 days later by Woodsrock [59]
[60] November 10 (immediately undoing Woodsrock’s revert), reverted within five minutes by Woodsrock [61]
[62] November 9, reverted the following day by Woodsrock [63]
[64] November 17, reverted two days later by Woodsrock [65]
[66] November 17, reverted a few hours later by VsevolodKrolikov [67]
[68] November 18 (immediately undoing VsevolodKrolikov’s revert), reverted the following day by VsevolodKrolikov [69]
[70] November 17, reverted a few hours later by VsevolodKrolikov [71]
[72] November 17, reverted two days later by Woodsrock [73]
[74] November 17, reverted a few hours later by VsevolodKrolikov [75]
[76] November 17, reverted a few hours later by Anthon.Eff [77]
[78] November 19, reverted a few hours later by Woodsrock [79]

Removing Race and intelligence link from other articles/templates

[80] November 5, reverted five days later by Woodsrock [81]
[82] November 10 (immediately undoing Woodsrock’s revert), reverted around ten minutes later by Woodsrock [83]
[84] November 10, reverted a few hours later by Victor Chmara [85]
[86] November 5, reverted five days later by Woodsrock [87]
[88] November 10 (immediately undoing Woodsrock’s revert). Another instance where he eventually got his way by edit warring.
[89] November 10, reverted around 12 hours later by me [90]
[91] November 10 (immediately undoing my revert), reverted around an hour later by me [92]

To summarize: WeijiBaikeBianji has made 28 attempts to remove the human intelligence template from articles and to remove links to the race and intelligence article from templates and articles. (Unless I missed some, which I may have.) His attempts at this have been reverted by seven different users: me, Woodsrock, Miradre, VsevolodKrolikov, Anthon.Eff, Victor Chmara, and TrevelyanL85A2. There are seven users who disagree with what he’s doing, and none who agree, but he keeps doing it.

In most cases, WeijiBaikeBianji has not initiated any discussion with the editors reverting his edits, and has frequently undone their reverts without discussion. Other editors have attempted to engage in discussion with him—three examples of this are [93], [94], and [95]. When other users have brought this up with him, he has participated in the discussions, but not stopped reinstating his disputed changes.

On November 19, the fifth time that WeijiBaikeBianji removed the link to Race and intelligence from the human intelligence template, he made a post on the template talk page stating why he was changing the link. [96] No other editors commenting there agreed that this link should be changed, but instead of waiting to build a consensus for his desired change, WeijiBaikeBianji just continued undoing reverts from multiple editors to keep changing the link. [97] [98] To my knowledge he has not actually violated 3RR, but this is definitely a slower sort of edit warring.

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

WeijiBaikeBianji’s apparent conflict of interest on the High IQ society article was discussed in his AFD for this article. [99] There have also been discussions about his removal of the Human intelligence template, [100] [101] and his removal of links to the Race and intelligence article. [102] [103]

There was also an Arbitration Enforcement thread [104] about some of the same behavior described here, as well as other examples of POV-pushing that I haven’t included. The main reason this thread was unable to resolve the dispute is because the discussion among uninvolved admins got sidetracked onto whether the editor posting the thread had permission to do so, and when it was finally determined that she did, there was no discussion about the thread’s intended topic before the thread was closed. In this thread, WeijiBaikeBianji stated that he was taking other editors’ concerns about his behavior to heart. [105] However, that was on October 24, and his recent behavior in my second and third example make it doubtful that this is actually the case.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

As stated above, most of the diffs from my second and third examples are from after he agreed in the AE thread to listen to others’ concerns about his behavior. Even after his apparent conflict of interest on the High IQ society was pointed out in the AFD, WeijiBaikeBianji also continued removing content from this article [106] [107] [108] and removing the link to it. [109] He has also continued to remove the Human intelligence template from articles [110] and remove the link to Race and intelligence from this template [111] [112] [113] even when other editors were attempting to discuss this with him and making it clear that they disagreed with it.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

I warned WeijiBaikeBianji on November 18 here that "As for the template, it is clear that a number of editors want to include the template on several pages from which you have removed it. It's fair enough to dispute it once, but you're disputing it over and over again, and not by talking, but by removing it. That's not how one gets consensus". This reversion behaviour on the collection of pages in question continued thereafter. I also explained that his lack of clear communication and consistent reversion was causing problems on his own talkpage here, stating "I maintain that several other editors over the past month preferring that the template in general remains indicates a consensus. Consensus does not always (in fact, probably rarely) happen through formal procedures of approval. It's usually only when a dispute arises that cannot be informally resolved that procedures are resorted to. As you are not sure even if you oppose the template, the dispute is unclear. You don't appear to have raised any objections in line with the basic principles of wikipedia." WeijiBaikeBianji has a very civil tone, and makes constant references to the need for sourcing and for consensus. However, he does not seem to follow this by either improving sourcing or trying to form consensus, despite several pleas. (Mine are examples) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sightwatcher for summing that all up, see above ↑. Yep, that's what's been going on. WBB is not being reasonable. It's Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT type censorship. One of the first things I said to WBB, was roughly "If the articles aren't up to your liking, go and work on them. People are still allowed to view those articles". WBB can still do that. However, WBB has decided, it seems, that people should just not be allowed to view certain articles! So, what has followed is all manner of unjustified acrobatics, in both page editing and talk-page-babble, to achieve: "Must... hide... pages... I don't like...". WBB needs to be told off. Woodsrock (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Thanks to new editor SightWatcher for the notification of this request for comment on my user talk page. I will be at work throughout the rest of this day, and perhaps other editors will comment meanwhile. After carefully considering the submission, I think the parts of it that are relevant to Wikipedia editor conduct guidelines or other Wikipedia guidelines or policies are untrue, while any parts of it that may be true are irrelevant. In other words, the request should not be endorsed. Of possible interest to editors looking on is a request for arbitration enforcement that has also just been opened, which shows that this request for comment very likely is a continuation of an edit war by a topic-banned editor that began before I became a wikipedian. Certainly any editor who comments here is someone I can learn from, and I thank everyone for their comments. I am at all times and in all places willing to discuss with editors their rationale for editing Wikipedia article text on the basis of Wikipedia core policies, other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and what reliable sources say about each article subject. My more than 3,000 edits have thus far left me block-free, and hundreds of those edits have been sharing links to sources [114] [115] and inviting other editors to share links for better sourcing. [116] [117] As between this request for comment and the request for arbitration enforcement, I will do my best to learn from both, and I hope all conscientious editors who are here to build an encyclopedia can soon return to devoting their time to sourced article edits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.