User talk:Woodsrock

Welcome...

Hello, Woodsrock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

I see you've just developed a new template for articles related to human intelligence. I'm wondering if you've seen the source list on that subject I keep in user space for all Wikipedians to use. Perhaps you know of some sources you would like to suggest as additions to that source list. Welcome aboard.

Again, welcome! WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

Hello, an arbitration enforcement request about an issue you've been involved in has recently been posted here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to provide a rationale for article edits or template edits in the talk pages.

Hi, Woodsrock, I see you are still quite new here, and quite active in editing articles related to the recently decided Arbitration Committee case. It has historically been difficult to bring about editor collaboration in the proper Wikipedia way in many of the articles related to that case, perhaps because editors come to those articles with their minds already made up from having read just a few sources, but I'm optimistic that that situation is improving recently as more editors are reading more and better sources (which you and all editors are always welcome to contribute to the joint list). Let's discuss on appropriate talk pages for articles or for templates what edits best represent current reliable sources on those sometimes very contentious subjects. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on High IQ society. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your edit summaries are more useful to the thousands of other editors who edit Wikipedia when you refer to a rationale for the article (or template) text to be as you prefer rather than malign an edit as a "crank" or "bizarre" or "strange" edit. Wikipedia has rules about editor civility and those rules are specifically mentioned in the active arbitration sanctions to which the articles you have been editing recently are subject. I look forward to much civil discussion with you about what the best sources on the article topics say and how those articles can best reflect those sources with due weight to differing points of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC) WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have good faith - you are on a dishonest mission of some sort. Woodsrock (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WeijiBaikeBianji's possible COI

(This comment is being posted to several editors who were involved in the AFD for High IQ society.)

I’ve just noticed the now-closed AFD for this article, and the concerns that were raised in it about WeijiBaikeBianji’s possible conflict of interest on IQ-related articles. I’ve also had some concerns about WeijiBaikeBianji’s editing behavior on these articles, and so have a few other editors who weren’t involved in the AFD, so I recently brought up this issue with Coren, one of the arbitrators. The discussion about this is here. Coren is offering some advice about how this issue ought to be handled, so he suggested that I contact the other editors who’ve been concerned about this possible COI.

One thing that Coren is suggesting is to start an RFC about WeijiBaikeBianji. Whether you agree with that suggestion or not, I think it would be a good idea for any of you to participate in the discussion in Coren’s user talk, in order to help figure out what the best way is to deal with this situation. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that all means, but I'd love to see that crank taken down. Woodsrock (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can explain the meaning of some of the terms I’m using. I see you’ve only been registered for a month, so I probably shouldn’t be using all of these terms while expecting you to already know what they mean.

AFD: Stands for “Article For Deletion”, such as WeijiBaikeBianji’s attempt to delete the “High IQ society” article. See Wikipedia:AFD
Arbitrators: High-level Wikipedia admins. Wikipedia currently has 13 arbitrators, who are responsible for resolving disputes that can’t be resolved any other way, although arbitration cases generally aren’t accepted unless several other dispute resolution channels have already been tried and failed. The reason I contacted Coren is because there was an arbitration case about IQ-related articles over the summer, and WeijiBaikeBianji and I were both involved in it. See Wikipedia:ARBCOM
COI: Stands for “Conflict of Interest”, which is an external influence on an editor’s behavior that interferes with their ability to be neutral on Wikipedia articles. An example of a COI would be if WeijiBaikeBianji’s affiliation with Mensa has been motivating him to try and get articles about other high-IQ societies deleted. Letting a conflict of interest affect one’s editing behavior isn’t allowed at Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:COI
RFC: Stands for “Request for Comment”. A request for comment about a specific user (Also known as an RFC/U) is a way to bring attention to a user’s conduct in an effort to get them to improve it. An RFC/U itself can’t result in sanctions against an editor, but it can still document problematic behavior, so that if they continue to engage in the same behavior even after being asked to stop in the RFC/U, they’re more likely to be sanctioned in the future. See Wikipedia:RFC/U

If there’s anything else I’m saying where you don’t know what it means, let me know and I’ll try to explain it.

Although I agree that some of what WeijiBaikeBianji has been doing is disruptive, wanting to get him “taken down” probably isn’t the best attitude to have about this. The goal should just be to stop him from having a negative effect on these articles, either by getting him to change his behavior, or possibly with some sort of sanction if he isn’t willing to change it. Coren might have some useful advice about how to accomplish this, so I’d suggest listening to whatever he has to say about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Captain. WBB's attempt to delete the High IQ society page was strange. I don't understand why someone would object to that topic's existence. As unbelievable as it sounds, I'm guessing WBB's dislike of the page was personal in nature.

Actually, in writing this it made me think, and I've realized that WBB is not a crank. WBB simply does not like any concepts that could lead to notions of "hierarchy". This is why WBB is also mistakenly interested in racial topics.

WBB, all people are morally equal. Hierarchies are only 'there' if you choose to categorize people from a materialist perspective (productivity, resource acquisition), AND then really think those distinctions are important in an individual's worth as a person. A materialist view of the world is only one shallow view of humanity's value.

(Your outlook is also deterministic - you might believe IQ, and race, must lead to a certain sort of life - this is so not true.)

WeijiBaikeBianji your objection to notions of hierarchy is a philosophical issue you can move past. Hierarchies can exist. But only if we choose to see them, and crucially, only if we choose to place great (and totalizing) value in them.

Woodsrock (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much more courteous (and productive) to bring up these issues on my talk page, but I have to say that some of the comments that have come up from experienced editors and administrators where Captain Occam raised his complaint are kind of hilarious, in light of the urgent accusations being made about me. How about let's just look up reliable sources and discuss what those actually say on article talk pages (or, if you prefer, on my talk page) and go about building an encyclopedia? I am perhaps second to none in my willingness to share sources with other editors[1] here on Wikipedia, so we have plenty to discuss in a civil, welcoming manner. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough editors have raised concerns with your behavior on various article talk pages, as well as in the AFD for High IQ Society, that it’s hard for me to imagine trying to discuss it in your user talk would have led to a different result. I mean, you had four different editors telling you in the AFD that you had a conflict of interest on these articles and should not be editing them, yet you chose to ignore all four of them—do you really expect anyone to believe that you would have reacted differently if this point had been made in your user talk instead?

Woodsrock, as you can see from Coren’s user talk, Coren is suggesting that we go ahead with an RFC/U. I guess I agree with Coren that that’s the most appropriate course of action at this stage. If you’d like to start the RFC/U yourself and aren’t sure how to go about this, I (or any other fairly experienced editor) can give you some advice about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Captain, I agree with you. Respectfully though, I don't want to live in wiki-world, re making a RFC/UFC, so I'm sorry I can't/won't put in more. Happy to add comments though to court cases if I happen to look at wikipedia. I know you've done some good organizing work. Awareness of WBB's (polite) jihad is growing - but the Five-O need to know. Raising awareness amongst good admins will speed up putting the cuffs on, so I think talk to them directly. Woodsrock (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Captain Occam Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning

Please be aware that due to a long history of disruptive editing, articles and pages relating to race and intelligence are subject to discretionary sanctions. The details of discretionary sanctions are here, and their extension to race/intelligence articles can be found here.

You've crossed well over the line of inappropriate behavior numerous times, in particular by repeatedly attacking other editors. As a small sampling, this, this, and this are all unacceptable, particularly given that editors of this controversial topic are expected to be on best behavior. Coupling that rhetoric with the fact that a sizable percentage of your article contributions seem to consist of reverting a single user across multiple articles, there seems to be a problem.

This is a formal warning of the existence of discretionary sanctions, and of the fact that you're at risk for triggering them by repeatedly contravening this site's behavioral expectations. If you have concerns about a specific editor, the appropriate approach is detailed here. Please feel free to seek additional guidance from other editors and admins if you feel I'm unfairly singling you out. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from non-admin

Woodsrock, perusing your talk page, you appear to spend a fair ammount of time speculating on what motivates other editors. This is not an appropriate course of action. The general rule is to comment on the content, not the contributor. If there's a pattern of problematic editing from a certain editor, there are venues for that, like RfC/U and WP:AE, but you should also limit your posts there on how you think certain edits or patterns violate Wikipedia policies, and support such claims with WP:DIFFs. Unfounded accusations are considered WP:UNCIVIL, and repeating such accusations may constitute Wikipedia:Harassment. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned at WP:A/R/CL

Please see this discussion. You do not have to take any action, this is just a courtesy notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam appeal at AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Captain_Occam

Captain Occam is appealing the decision made by EdJohnston at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of proposed motion

This is to notify you that a request to clarify the terms of Remedy 5.1 of the Race and Intelligence arbitration case has been made and a motion which may affect you has been filed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies ^talk 04:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:
Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this