Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WeijiBaikeBianji

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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: 04:28, 12 June 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

• Wikipedia:DISRUPT
• Wikipedia:GAME
• Wikipedia:HEAR
• Wikipedia:NPOV
• Wikipedia:COI
• Wikipedia:EDITWAR

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}

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. I certify that there's enough basis for this dispute. I don't necessarily endorse every diff above, but I have also seen a case where WeijiBaikeBianji requested sources questioning the notability of Lewontin's Fallacy, and then proceeded to delete most of the sources I added in response to that request [114]. Further, he also tagged one of the sources as "needing verification", even though he claimed on Talk:Race and genetics that he has (read) that book. These actions combined were somewhat unhelpful. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Oops, didn't realize I could certify/sign my own endorsement here, I obviously certify it too -SightWatcher (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. -- Cirt (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. -- David.Kane (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
3. -- TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4. I wasn’t initially sure whether or not topic bans from the R&I case cover this RFC, but now that I see both Mathsci and David.Kane have commented, I’m assuming this is allowed for us. I agree with the summary above that WeijiBaikeBianji’s behavior on these articles has been an issue for several months, and I’m glad it’s finally getting some attention. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
5. -- StevanMD (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Comments by certifiers VsevolodKrolikov and SightWatcher

moved from Outside view section I know this is in the wrong section, but I wanted this to be more noticeable. I would like to point out that WBB has apologised on my talkpage, indicating he's willing to focus more on communication with editors in making changes - and as one of the certifiers, I would take this as a satisfactory outcome. There's clearly a whole lot of history in this topic area, and far too much suspicion of motives on various sides. This makes it difficult for disputes to be managed calmly, as can be seen by the AE escalation. I hope we can move on and return to improving content. For those of you interested in one aspect of this discussion, we're trying to develop a WP:Further reading guideline, and I've suggested a way of handling the listing of possible future sources at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Source_Dumps_for_article_pages, in order to deal with some of the issues that occurred here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji made a promise like this before during the AE thread about him in October, before the template issue, and didn't end up keeping it that time. But at least a promise is something, and probably the most we can hope for with an RFC. I hope he follows through with his promise but if he doesn't, it's probably beyond what an RFC can resolve. So, I would agree that this is a satisfactory outcome, and I feel the RFC can be closed now. Does anyone object?-SightWatcher (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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 [115] [116] and inviting other editors to share links for better sourcing. [117] [118] 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)

Addition You editors who have taken the time and trouble to comment here have been kind and thoughtful. I appreciate the additional comments that have recently come in from several editors, and meanwhile have been continuing to ponder the earliest posted comments. Right away I can apologize to the several editors to whom I didn't communicate clearly enough by edit summaries when they encountered my recent edits to pages they watch closely. My edit count includes more talk page edits than article edits, but I'm happy to follow your advice on how to use talk pages more effectively to be transparent about my rationale for edits. Thus I thank the moving editor and all the editors who have posted here for providing perspective on my actions. I will take to heart the specific suggestions provided in another section about how to use sources more directly for updating article text for verifiability. I've recently been busy with adding still more sources to the source lists I share with fellow wikipedians, and all of you are welcome to suggest further sources for those lists on the article topics you follow most closely. I thank the moving editor for an opportunity to hear the comments that he requested and thus learn from colleagues about more collaboratively building an encyclopedia in the future. Any editors who have further suggestions for me are very welcome to give those, so that I can respond appropriately and so that this RfC can be wrapped up in a manner that upholds Wikipedia core policies and promotes the good of the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. My endorsement after addition. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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 TrevelyanL85A2

I am not directly involved in this dispute the way that VsevolodKrolikov, SightWatcher and Woodsrock are, but I’ve commented a few times on WeijiBaikeBianji’s behaviour in the past. My attention was attracted here by the controversy over recent additions to the "further reading" sections of numerous articles. Thus far, five different editors have expressed the opinion that his doing this was not appropriate: VsevolodKrolikov (here), Maunus (here), SightWatcher (here), CliffC (here), and Donlammers (here). All five of these editors have made it very clear why they think this was inappropriate. The best summary of this is the one provided by Maunus: "It is never a bad idea to add sources. But further reading sections are not for sources, they are for readings related to the topic - further reading sections are for including important literature related to the topic that has not been used as a source for the article […] Dumping the same book in ten different further reading sections looks a lot like link spamming - especially when several of the articles where it is dumped are only very marginally related to the topic of the book. Some of the persons in whose articles you added the book were only mentioned a few times in the book. Furthermore the book is a well researched piece of scholarship, but it is also clearly in favour oif a particular viewpoint. This makes including it in marginally related articles a bad idea."

I would have hoped that while he was the subject of a certified RFC/U containing complaints about both POV-pushing and a WP:IDHT attitude, WeijiBaikeBianji would have been careful to listen when five different editors were stating that these edits from him were inappropriate. Instead, he has been blithely dismissive of everyone else's concerns: "I am sorry that some editors are offended by efforts to add reliable sources to articles, but that is Wikipedia policy, so we all have to live with what the best sources say as we build an encyclopedia." As with the earlier examples described here, he does not seem able to understand or acknowledge any problems with his behavior, no matter how many other editors are pointing it out.

VsevolodKrolikov's comments above where he certified the dispute seem accurate. WeijiBaikeBianji is generally civil on talk pages, and constantly emphasizes the need for sourcing and consensus. It's good advice, even if it’s a little repetitive of him to repeat this in nearly every one of his comments, but WBB does not seem able to follow this advice himself. I agree that if WBB is going to participate in articles in this topic area, he should limit his participation to making suggestions on talk pages. His comments on talk pages range from constructive to harmless, but his content edits cause seemingly endless conflict.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
2. --VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
3. I don’t strongly disagree with Mathsci’s summary below, but I think Trevelyan’s summary is the more apt of the two because of the emphasis that it places on WeijiBaikeBianji’s Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, and the amount of conflict this has caused. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
5. SightWatcher (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Actually it wasn't ten different articles where WeijiBaikeBianji did that, it was at least 37 of them [119]
6. -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Mathsci

There seems to be some genuine confusion on the part of WeijiBaikeBianji in the use of sources in wikipedia articles. My advice to WeijiBaikeBianji is similar to that of Maunus. Once WeijiBaikeBianji has located relevant sources which he believes could be used for adding or improving content, the main thing is to add that content using the source. If unsourced existing content is supported by that source, add the source as a reference with a citation. Leaving months for adding content, as a sort of "to-do" list, by adding the source to further reading is not a good idea. That applies particularly to BLPs or biographies. In that event it is much better either (a) to suggest the source on the talk page of the article, explaining the material that could be used from that source, or (b) add it in anticipation to the references section, which might need to be created.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Though I'd say the talk page is the right place to propose sources; the References section should be for sources actually used in the article. --JN466 13:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
3. This includes a helpful concrete suggestion. I'll ponder this while I ponder all the other comments editors have kindly shared. Please note that I am willing to restrict my scope of doing things that are permitted by Wikipedia policy and encouraged by WP:SOFIXIT if there are other ways to achieve the same ends that are more congenial to fellow editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Endorsing. Although, when I feel too lazy, I also dump sources in the further reading and the external links section instead of integrating them into the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Fences and windows

I think that "Example 1" and "Example 2" are pretty lame reasons to open an RfC/U. Renaming articles isn't disruptive, it's called being bold. After the renames people disagreed and the names got reverted. Big deal. As for the IQ societies, it seems that WBB knows about this area and nominated some articles about non-notable organisations for deletion, and they got deleted. Big deal. If he knows about the area and knows how to look for sources, that's how he could tell they aren't notable. And the "sources" he removed from High IQ society were all promotional links to these various non-notable societies. Big deal. The only thing I see as being a problem is the removal of the template and links from the template, but that's something that can be discussed and is hardly a reason to crucify him. This RfC seems to be ideologically motivated, I think you're hoping for ArbCom to overreact and hand out a topic ban. Do try proper dispute resolution rather than bringing out the big guns to get people banned, it's pretty unseemly what you're doing here.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. My view. Fences&Windows 10:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
3. --JN466 13:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
5. I appreciate the comments from all the users who have commented here, and want to amend my behavior based on several of those comments, including comments by the moving editor and endorsing editors, but I agree with the background summary here even as I consider how to improve my own interaction with my fellow editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
6. The complaint about nomming articles that were not—not one of them—actually found to be notable at AfD, despite advertising at list of Organizations-related deletion discussions, is particularly inappropriate. Nomming non-notable WP:CLUB spam for deletion is a sign of a good editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Sightwatcher's been disproportionately antagonistic towards WBB from the get go--smacks of a long held grudge. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Ferahgo the Assassin

I've been thinking of offering an opinion here for a while, but wasn't sure whether I wanted to. Now that admins at AE are discussing the idea of extending R&I topic bans to dispute resolution, though, I might as well take the opportunity while I have it.

I was involved in the dispute following Weiji's undiscussed article renames, and was one of the editors who opposed them. I obviously haven't been around for the other issues being discussed here, but it looks like his behavior hasn't improved. I think the most important point here - which Fences&Windows seems to be missing - is Weiji's unwillingness to listen to other editors. He was told that his article renames were a problem, and then he went and renamed Fertility and intelligence and Race and genetics. He was told by four editors during an AFD that he appears to be a conflict of interest on High IQ society, and then he continued removing content from it anyway. A lot of different editors told him to stop removing the human intelligence template and changing the links in it, and he continued doing this. The whole point of this RFC/U seems to be that attempting to resolve these issues with Weiji on talk pages is not working, and some of the failed attempts at discussion with him are linked to in SightWatcher's original post and VsevolodKrolikov's comment certifying it. I think this is one of the reasons Coren suggested starting an RFC. As a side note, it seems pretty weird to accuse an RFC/U of being "ideologically motivated" when it was started at an arbitrator's suggestion.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Without endorsing the propriety of Ferahgo's participation here. I found Fences and Windows' accusation of ideology really quite odd, particularly as the dispute has not been over content so much as editing behaviour, and the RFC was started after a variety of problems appeared across several pages. Each individual case seems minor, but put together the pattern is causing headaches. Not listening appears to be a chronic problem. In this topic area (which I'm quite new to) there appears to be all sorts of history that make any dispute deeply political. Funnily enough, among the editors not topic-banned who usually bicker, there seems to be pretty much consensus that WBB is not editing in the most helpful fashion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
3. -TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by WhatamIdoing

One overall impression left by this complaint is that the complainants don't seem to know the difference between "hearing" or "listening to" someone and "agreeing with" that person's statement.

So from the top, here's what WP:IDHT requires:

1. That the editor hold a view or goal.
2. That the community (not merely the complainants) have (actually, directly) rejected that view or goal.
3. That the editor continue to hold that view or goal, and act upon it, for a very long time after step 2.

You must have all three parts to meet IDHT.

What we have here is that WBB holds one view or goal, that the complainants hold a different view or goal, that the community has mostly endorsed that WBB's goal and mostly rejected the complainants' goals (e.g., by deleting the non-notable clubs). IDHT simply doesn't apply.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Thank you for your analysis of the WP:IDHT section of the behavioral guideline on disruptive editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Professor marginalia

WeijiBaikeBianji has put a lot of effort into bringing these troublesome articles up to snuff, with encouragement to do so from one of the arbitrators near the close of the arbitration.[120] He's been forthright about the direction he thinks they should go: elevating the quality of the sources used, bringing the articles more into conformity with the way the subject is addressed in other encyclopedias and secondary sources, eliminating or appropriately balancing the fringy debris etc. He's been very collegial every step of the way while working to get up to speed on wikipedia's somewhat byzantine customs and folkways. He's simply been going WP:BOLD because (as we all know) there's a tendency to "process" endlessly trying to "collaborate" so things stagnate and very little ever gets done. So taking these in turn:

1. Mass renaming of articles without discussion He did make an effort to discuss this.[121] The discussion stagnated. He tried BOLD for a few days, met resistance, and dropped the issue. Big deal.
2. Apparent conflict of interest on articles related to high IQ societies Absurd charge. The articles were fringe, discussions surrounding the arbitration signaled a need to clear stuff like that out that was showing up in Race and Intelligence related category pages. AFDs rarely please everybody. Next.
3. Edit warring over templates and links This is the most troublesome of the accusations against WBB, but after looking closely at the timeline of changes and talk page discussions, I find the situation much more complicated. Up until about Nov 17th and 18th, the only attention given to WBB's concerns was from 3 editors who many suspected of being pov-pushing socks (and a fourth later joined them to lend backup). Other than this, the first to take an interest in addressing WBB was VsevolodKrolikov on Nov 18th., responding to one of WBB's concerns. After this, WBB returned to the template itself with another of his issues, and exchanged at most 3 reverts over 2 days-a slow speed edit war, maybe--but also somewhat understandable BRD to coax broader input, given the problem these articles have had with socks. But my recommendation would be to avoid BOLD in cases like this one--it just further confuses an already confusing situation.

Overall I think the charges against WBB have been overblown. Most of the articles aren't where they should be, he is amenable and collaborative, and he is simply experimenting with the tools and advice wikipedia's essays and guidelines offered to editors in these situations. But for now, the BOLD approach is backfiring so if it were me I think I'd explore other ideas for awhile.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Thank you for your careful summary of the separate issues, and especially for linking to the ArbCom case file diff where all this was laid out for ArbCom and several other administrators and editors to see in advance. Thanks too for the opportunity to specifically distinguish the behavior of VsevolodKrolikov. I feel bad that he got dragged into this mess, and I want to apologize to him. I can understand that he might be wary about me for a while, but on my part I count him as a conscientious editor (he has been finding some interesting sources, which I expect I will enjoy reading, for some of the articles he is working on) and hope that as tempers cool I will be able to learn from him as he and I work on some of the same articles together with proper communication. (I failed in communicating to him all of the background you have so kindly laid out here, and his reaction to me is understandable based on what he knew when he knew it.) I hope in the future to make more use of the WikiProject Psychology talk page to coordinate editing across multiple related articles in the scope of that project. VsevolodKrolikov has great sources, and great sources build better articles. Any editor who is looking to bring better sources into articles is a friend of mine and someone who is setting me a good example. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
3. To the extent that would be a problem here, I find PM's characterization of some of the edits as "experimentation" to be the most illuminating. If some of the failed experiments became primary editing techniques, then there would be a cause for concern. Continuance of failed experiments does not seem to be occurring here. aprock (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
4. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Overblown charges are overblown. I'm hoping that WeijiBaikeBianji will take notes of the comments left in the RfC by many experienced editors (not including myself, because I still make so many clumsy errors). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
6. --JN466 12:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.