User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Mathsci's behavior

Ludwig,

I know you’ve had some doubts about Mathsci’s behavior lately, so I thought you might want to take a look at this diff. Is it acceptable to revert another user’s comments on a talk page under these circumstances? I consider this problematic; but you’re the one who makes the rules here, so it’s up to you whether it is or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's acceptable, since it's very close to outing. I've actually templated horse wiz for it, and I would have removed it myself if I had seen it before Mathsci. I would have preferred if Mathsci had asked me, but... --Ludwigs2 21:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I regard this as an attempt at WP:OUTING since the editor made a link to my real life photograph (taken by Charles Matthews). Occam should be careful, or he could incur a lengthy block for assisting in outing. If this continues I will contact members of ArbCom, possibly mentioning Captain Occam. Mathsci (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That threat is as empty as all your others, loudmouth. The pic was taken at a public wikipedia meeting, published by wikipedia, and you were identified in the pic by wikipedia. It does not disclose your name. So go back to pushing people around at the mediation. The only thing wrong here is sockpuppeting by someone either here or somewhere else you've bullied.

Ironically, your comment is great evidence that the race/intelligence link (true) is not the same thing as "smart people are superior" (false). TechnoFaye Kane 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci has disclosed where he works.[1] --Horse wiz (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not for me to worry about. You are not a participant in the mediation, but you are participating there to make off-topic and personal commentary. In fact, I notice this is a recently created account that has done nothing except comment in a mediation, and that simply reeks of bad intentions. if you persist in this kind of behavior I will file a report with the administrators (mentioning all my concerns) and let them decide how best to handle the situation.

I am generally tolerant, but I am not about to allow you to hang around the mediation solely for the purpose of inflaming tempers. understood? --Ludwigs2 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This comment smacks of academic elitism. [2] --Horse wiz (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with your point, please don't make me open a sock-puppet investigation on you. You obviously have some particular beef with Mathsci, and you've obviously created this account just to carry that beef over into the R&I mediation, and that's not acceptable. stop it.

Mathsci looks just like I thought someone like him would. I wonder if he beats up his wife with those hands.

Nevertheless, why NOT call for a sockpuppet investigation? It doesn't use a lot of someone's resources, does it? Can I do it myself? If I do, will you back me up? I won't report the result to anyone but you. Would doing it be proper, a radical, big-deal thing like accusing someone of being a communist`, or is this whole issue a tempest in a toilet? Note that while I'm reeeal good at establishing what's true, I am biologically incapable of identifying what's "proper".

Note that whoever wants to "out" mathsci, if they're in our group, almost certainly agrees with me about article content. But that doesn't matter. Wikipedia is my ONLY sanctuary from the stuff which drove me to go live in a cave (and BTW, arrogant people like mathsci are a big part of that). RL is an arbitrary, irrational, god-forsaken nightmare; and infection by the disease of ill-will and disruption by the malicious MUST not be tolerated in this Sanctuary--no matter WHO does it.

And that includes mathsci. TechnoFaye Kane 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, nothing you have written above makes the slightest bit of sense to me. Still, have a nice day. Mathsci (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

personal attack?

Bryan Pesta appears to be an untenured member of faculty in Cleveland State University. He is attempting to dismiss a distinguished academic at the University of Michigan using criteria outside normal editing policies. Don't you see a serious problem there? Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Pesta is an editor who is offering his opinion on Nisbett as a source. The fact that he is also an academic is an arguable plus (to the extent that he is more familiar with the material than most normal editors). However, Pesta is not a source, and none of his own work is being offered for use on this article, so the attempt to dismiss his opinion by saying that he is "part of the untenured faculty of Cleveland State University" is clearly an attack on his credibility as an editor. If you want to refute his opinions about Nisbett, please focus on Nisbett and Nisbett's relationship to academia, through proper sourcing.

I mean, really... you just got very upset (understandably and correctly) when Horse Wiz tried to 'out' you in your professional standing; why did you turn around and try to use Bryan's professional standing as a tool to dismiss what he says? If you don't want to take his opinions as anything more than the opinions of another editor, that's ok by me, but don't do it by dragging personal matters into the mix. they are irrelevant to the discussion. --Ludwigs2 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Woh, right ON! This is a perfect example of what I talked about here. TechnoFaye Kane 12:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Before the edit wars get ugly, I would recommend that you assign (as soon as possible) either me or someone else to incorporate the suggestions made by Aprock, Occam, Bpesta and so on. Just my 2 cents. And, again, kudos to you for a great job with the mediation. It is truly a thankless task. David.Kane (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

David. it seems that Mathsci and Occam worked something out - or am I missing some bit of it? please point me to wherever the problem is if you're seeing something specific that still needs to be addressed. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern was about, specifically, Aprock and the other editors who offered extensive commentary on my draft. We (or you or I or all of us) promised (?) them that those comments would be incorporated in the article in some fashion. I think that the best way to do that is to specify a specific editor to do that. How else will they get in? David.Kane (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Make a new section and bring that up in the mediation, and then give it a day or so before editing it in. I don't have any objections to anyone doing it, so long as there's no overt objections. --Ludwigs2 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. David.Kane (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

B. Pesta

Any and all comments I made concerning Dr. Pesta's credentials and position were in relation to him not as editor but as the author of journal articles we might be using in the encyclopedia article - because that is the context in which we are talking about Nesbitt. That said, I reiterate that it was not I who first raised his credentials, and other editors have alluded to his position or credentials in presenting him as an "expert" editor. I think the criticism you have leveled against MathSci and myself could have been leveled against TechnoFaye and mikemikev and perhaps others and I do not understand why you level it against me when you did not level it against them. I hope you do not think of this as fillebustering. I am writing here so as not to further disrupt the mediation talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet seen anyone except TechnoFaye claim that we ought to listen to Bpesta because he's an expert. If you have, point it ought and I'll deal with it (Faye is a special case, whom I give allowances due to her self-proclaimed autism; I think we all recognize and adapt to her excesses). I'm more concerned with the approach you (and to a greater extent Mathsci) take, which seems to say the following:

• Nesbett is a respected tenured professor (which is true)
• Pesta is an untenured professor (which is true)
• Therefore, Nesbitt's opinion carries more weight than Pesta's (which is problematic)

The reason why that conclusion is problematic is that Nesbitt and Pesta are not talking to each other in the academic literature. If Bryan had published material opposing Nesbitt, and that material were being offered as a criticism of Nesbitt, then the reliability of Bryan's published work would come into scrutiny, and his professional standing would be a matter for discussion (and yes, Nesbit would probably beat him hands down on notability). however, what we have here (as far as I can see) is that Bryan has offered an opinion as an editor about Nesbitt (using his own impressions of the academic literature), and you and Mathsci have offered opinions as editors that oppose Bryan's opinion. the three of you should now get down to comparing sources and arguments; neither your, nor Mathsci's not Pesta's professional affiliations matters (except to the extent that they give you knowledge bases).

As I have said before, Bpesta was allowed into this discussion because (as a professional in the field) he has a broad knowledge of the material in the literature. That means he has knowledge and access to sources the rest of us may not; it does not mean that he is making a scholarly argument here on wikipedia (which wouldn't be allowed under policy anyway), or that his opinion carries more weight than any other editor's. treat him as an editor and examine his arguments and sources as you would any other editor - that's all I ask. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that Pesta is more of an authority than Nesbitt, or that his article should weigh more than Nesbitt's book. Nor have I ever suggested the opposite. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[3] Here Mikemikev2 alludes to Bryan's credentials or position, and he is referring to Bryan as a fellow ediotr, not as the source of a published journal article we may use as a source. Yet you repremind me and MathSci, not Mikemikev. This is the kind of thing that gives credence to Mutuwandi's concerns about your having allowed a few SPAs to hijack the process. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're objection is. are you saying that Bryan is not an expert in his field? Mikemikev's statement here is overblown, true, but he's neither insisting that Bryan's views be taken as read nor saying that Bpesta's academic standing overshadow's Nesbitt's. The issue here is not approval or disapproval of Bpesta's views (which are perfectly valid as far as talk pages go), but the confusion between wikipedia debates and scholarly debates. Bpesta is entitled to have a view on Nesbitt as an editor; mike is entitled to like it, you are entitled to dislike it, but neither of you is entitled to use Bpesta's academic standing to bolster your likes or dislikes. --Ludwigs2 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear that by providing an example, I was responding to your statement, "I have not yet seen anyone except TechnoFaye claim that we ought to listen to Bpesta because he's an expert." Amy I sayng BPesta is not an expert in his field? Ludwigs2, I really do not understand how you can ask me this question. For one thing, I have answered this question several times on your talk page, and on the mediation talk page. But I have to ask you, on what basis am I supposed to consider him an expert? Aren't his credentials and position evidence of his expertise? And yet you criticized me and MathSci for mentioning his credentials and position. My point is that it is you (and previously, TechnoFaye and Mikemikev), in affirming BPesta's credentials and position, who make them an issue. It therefore makes you a hypocrite to fault mathsci and I for bringing up his credentials and position, when you have not faulted other edtiors, like Mikemikev in the quote I just provided you (in a link) for making his expertise an issue. It is your hypocracy that concerns me. This is a very simple point, and it is the only point I have been trying to make here.

As to questioning Bpesta's credentials, I dare you to find a single sentence or combination of sentences where I reject BPesta's expertise. I mentioned his credentials in only one instance, and that was to make the point that Nesbitt (as a source, not Wikipedia editor) is at least as notable and significant a source as BPesta (as a source, not Wikipedia editor). This is not a challenge to Pesta, it is a defense of Nesbitt. (Can you tell me where, exactly, I said Nesbitt's views count for more than Pesta's? You seem to be making allegations against me without evidence). I have repeated this a couple of times and am disappointed that I have to repeat the point once more, but you asked me to clarify my objection and suggested I was objecting to BPesta. I've no idea where you get that from, but it requires me to repeat what I have stated two or three times on the mediation talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

slr - I am really not understanding you here; it's not making sense to me. let me put my position again, as succinctly as possibly. when and where Bpesta offers his own work as a source, you may address his reliability as a source. where he doesn't, you may not. Bpesta being an expert only means that he is an academic working in the field, with specialized knowledge that might be useful to the editors here. It doesn't mean anything more than that, and it doesn't mean you have to treat him as anything more than another editor. If Nisbett were to sign on and participate here as an editor, I would make exactly the same statement - you could address his credentials when you are dealing with him as a source, but not when you are dealing with him as an editor.

If you don't see the distinction between Bpesta as a source and Bpesta as an editor that is a major failing, because our policies for dealing with sources are significantly different than out policies for dealing with editors. confusing them in this way will inevitably put you in violation of one or both sets of policy. I am asking you to treat him solely as an editor until such a time as his own academic work is presented as a source for the article, and am holding you to the do not comment on other editors rule until that time. if Mike or anyone goes the extra mile and tries to use Bpesta's credentials to claim he should have a more influence than other editors, I will kibosh that as well (and in fact, I have done that on the mediation page at least once already, though I'd have to dig out the diff for it). is that clearer? --Ludwigs2 05:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Where have I ever collapsed the distinction between Bpesta as editor and as source? You keep making allogations against me without providing any examples. Even in this section of your talk page, where do I ellide the distinction? I keep asking you to provide examples of my doing the bad things you claim I have done. And instead of providing evidence, you just keep making more allegations. Why? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You conflated the two here where you said "Bryan Pesta teaches in a Management Department; Nesbitt heads a prestigious institute for cognitive psychology", making an explicit comparison between an editor and a source. Why would this comparison be meaningful? the rest of your statement was unobjectionable, mind you, but why did you think this comparison was meaningful? --Ludwigs2 15:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Where am I making an explicit comparison between an editor and a source? NPOV requires that we include all significant views found in verifiable sources, it is a two-fold criteria; the view must be significant and the source verifiable. There is no debate about the verifiability of the sources, both Pesta's article and Nesbitt's book are verifiable sources. But Mikemikev and others were arguing that Nesbitt's views are not significant enough to include in the article. My point was that if Pesta's credentials and position are sufficient to make his view significant enough to include in the article (and Ludwigs2, if you are going to suggest that I am saying they are not, you had better provide an edit diff for just one time that I questioned using his article — because I can provide many edit diffs where I supported using his article), then Nesbitt's position and credentials are sufficient to make his views significant enough to include in the article.

My comparison was between two people whose views should be included in the article. You used the word "explicit." Where on earth do I say that I mean Pesta as editor of Wikipedia and not Pesta as author of a journal article?

My point was to say that Nesbitt is just as significant as Pesta. You used the word "explicit." Where on earth do I say that Pesta's views 9as a published author0 are less significant than Nesbitt's? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You said in the passage above: "My point was that if Pesta's credentials and position are sufficient to make his view significant enough to include in the article [...], then Nesbitt's position and credentials are sufficient to make his views significant enough to include in the article", you are acting as though we are actually using an article Bpesta wrote in the article, and actually discussing that Bpesta article in the section in question. we are not, on either count; the section is discussing Nesbitt as a source, and Bpesta is not offering his own scholarly work as a counter to Nesbit, he's offering his opinion as an editor about Nesbitt. Again, if it comes down to discussing a Bpesta article as a source, you may talk about his credentials. Where he is just offering an opinion as an editor, please do not comment on other editors. --Ludwigs2 15:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, Pesta has recommended one of his articles as significant; he has explained why and I on at least two occasions said the material should be introduced into the article, and other editors have as well. If David Kane did not put it in during his first revision, I am sure it will end up in there.

Now why don't you just give it up and say that you misunderstood me. Do you think you are incapable of misunderstanding others? or just admitting to it? I have never commented on any editor's credentials and I do not intend to start, I consider them irrelevant. It is only the credentials of proponents of views we may include in articles that matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

let me be clearer. Under policy and the mediation rules, you are allowed to make statements of this type: "Bpesta's article is not a reliable source, because Bpesta's credentials are...". Under policy and the mediation rules, you are not allowed to make statements of this type: "Bpesta's opinion is not reliable, because Bpesta's credentials are...". I ask you to respect that distinction, and if you don't, I will continue to ask that you redact any statement that leans towards the second type. do you have an issue with that? --Ludwigs2 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing - Have I ever written, "Bpesta's opinion is not reliable, because Bpesta's credentials are...?" If you are not sure, I invite you to look at earlier points where he and I REALLY disagreed, for example, concerning Gould. Given that I have never suggested that Bpesta's opinion is not reliable, I do not see this to be a problem. Everyone is welcome to their opinion.

But Ludwigs2, as long as we are on the topic, don't you think that this works both ways? Do you think that Bpesta's opinion has any more weight as an editor than MathSci's, or mine, or Muntuwandi, or TechnoFaye? Yet this is just what Mikemikev was suggesting here and you still have not redacted it, you never even commented on it. I know you have doubts about my insistence that I was comparing two published authors, although that seems obvious to me. But Mikemikev is explicitly to borrow your word referring to B.pesta's opinion as an editor, and invoking his credentials. How dare you ask me to "redact" myself for doing something I have not yet done, while you completely ignore it when other editors really, actually, do do it? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PS I am not asking you now to redact a comment Mike made yesterday. That's water under the bridge. i just want you to be aware of your own bias, and strive to be just this little bit more even-handed in the future. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't written it, but the statement I linked above does tend to imply it (particularly on the heels of Mathsci's more overt comparisons). I really don't think you've done anything significantly wrong here - you and I may squawk at each other, but I generally have a high regard for you as an editor. I'm just erring on the side of civility, and perhaps being a bit over-zealous about it. but still...

With regards to Mike's and Faye's comments, that's an oddness of policy. wp:CIV prohibits negative comments about other editors, but it doesn't preclude positive comments. If I were to say that Editor X were 'the most glorious example of reason and virtue ever to grace the shores of wikipedia', I'd probably make people gag, but I wouldn't be violating anything except talk-page guildelines like wp:FORUM. making a negative comments however, would be a violation of CIV. so long as mike and Faye are not trying to use Bpesta's credentials to overpower other editors (which, yes, they have tried, and which I've opposed), then there's not much I can say about their glowing reviews.

I do not believe Bpesta's opinion has any more weight than any other editor's, and I will keep that point clear in the mediation. Basically, I think that Bpesta's main advantage to the mediation is that he is well-read on the topic: to the extent that he can provide sources and sourced scholarly opinions that the rest of us might not know about, he's a decided plus. But he doesn't get any special treatment because of that. --Ludwigs2 17:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I certainly hope B.Pesta did not take it the wrong way; I think he knew that in making an argument in favor of using Nisbett's views, I was not denegrating him. As for Mikemikev and Technofaye - and others - I do not think the issue is WP:CIV, I think the real issue is that credentials cannot matter at Wikipedia. While i have every reason to believe B.Pesta is Dr. Bryan Pesta (honestly, I believe it) the lesson of the Essjay affair is not that Essjay was bad for lying about his credentials, it was that everyone else was a fool for caring. I know you agree with me that disputes among editors should be resolved on the basis of policy, not the credentials of the editor. You said you redacted me for bringing up an editor's credentials. Fine. That would be the reason for redacting Mikemikev's remark. It has nothing to do with CIV, it has to do with making an issue out of something that should be ignored during the mediation, an editor's credentials. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. from now on, if anyone gets overly exuberant in favor of Bpesta as an expert (which is likely to happen, all things considered), I'll redact those comments as well. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And obviously, if you do believe I am being uncivil to him or any other editor, I don't mind being corrected.

David Kane is in the middle of revisions now. I found another source analyzing sibling race and IQ data I think is relevant, and I also think straightforward so I made mention of it on the IQ talk page, asking him to include it (I cannot imagine how this could be controversial - it is directly relevant and from a reliable source) FYI. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your mediation efforts on Race and Intelligence

This was particularly tricky given the strong feelings around this subject, but you have managed to keep things calm long enough to have a new version with many structural fixes. I'll read it through when I get a chance and see how the dust settles before deciding on your Barnstar. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My thanks also! By the way, I would like to thank you off-wiki as well. would you mind sending me an e-mail at dave at kanecap.com? David.Kane (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I believe that mediation will be (forcefully) coming to an end in two days, at least that is how I read this [4], note the comment from Xavexgoem. So, to the extent that you have any last acts to perform as mediator, you should perform them. I would certainly like to see my lead as the default for the article when mediation ends. (Folks can always change it later.) Consider it a going-away present for all my hard work! ;-) David.Kane (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

lol - David... I'm actually working on a compromise version on the mediation. It seems to me that you and Mathsci are in a bit of a head-to-head over the lead, you both make some good points, and I think that you both need to step out of the dispute and consider the article as a whole. As I've said before, no version of this article is going to please everyone, and so both you and M are going to have to (one way or another) find some less-than-completely-satisfactory middle ground which you can both (grudgingly) tolerate. Don't let your desires about the lead spoil the rest of the really excellent work that you've done.

With respect to the ANI thread: <shrug> I try not to read into things in quite that way. As I see it, except for a couple of points, you all don't really need mediation anymore. I'm going to suggest closure myself tomorrow morning, and I think there will be consensus for it. The lead (knock wood) we should be able to settle today; the significance section can be moved to the article talk page... it's all good. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. If I had to choose the lead issue I most care about, it is the use of global rather than US-specific terminology. All other aspects are secondary. In any event, good luck! I agree that mediation can close. And, again, this would have been an utter failure without you. David.Kane (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

edit for purposes of IRC

testing, testing... --Ludwigs2 17:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to be in there longer than that :-p

IRC? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Say hi next time :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying!!! don't blame me if you guys insist on using 1990 web technology! --Ludwigs2 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite

have fun. I think this is yours to deal with. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

uhh... I'm not sure I'm following you. was this supposed to go to someone else? --Ludwigs2 02:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein meant that Hipocrite had done a massive revert to a March 28 version of the article. I reverted it back. But others may need to keep on eye on this. David.Kane (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why I think closing mediation is premature. MathSci, Captain Occam, and BPesta all have major reservations about the article or about one another's proposals. i am convinced that all three have something to contribute and the result would be something all three could live with, and I bet that would soon get Arya, AProck and Muntuwandi's support and Mikmikev too. But I think you need a specific draft all these guys sign off on. Otherwise, many more editors will come saying that this was not reached by consensus and will revert or make major destabiizing changes. The thing is, I think we are close to a version all these guys will accept as the new article, still open to edits, but not major reverts and to be used as the working draft. I think we are very close to a real consensus. But we are not there yet. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

slr: I have no problem standing up to administrators if I have the legitimate right to do so, but if I try to do it when half of the people who responded to the straw poll say they want the mediation closed, then I'm up a creek without a paddle. I'll have a talk with Hipocrite (which probably won't do any good), but unless you can convince DK and Mathsci to continue the mediation, I really have no ground to stand on to do anything about this

that being said, there are a lot of administrator eyes on the page because of the ANI threads, so I there will be a certain period of relative calmness where we can continue to improve that article. a good article is its own best defense, here. --Ludwigs2 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox police officer

In your conversion of {{Infobox police officer}} you removed the HTML classes which form an hCard microformat. I have restored them. Please note the template's documentation for more details. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

whoops! sorry, my bad. is it fixed now, or is there more that needs to be done? and thanks for catching that. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All done, thanks. Just a word of caution for the future. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

and a well taken word, at that. honestly, I think I just spaced on it when I did the revision. I'll be more attentive next time. --Ludwigs2 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I new at wikipedia. I am a college student working on a project and I am basically clueless. How do I add information to the info box?DukeSoccer11 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.DukeSoccer11 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

yes we are and yes we could use some help

[5] is our page listing our projects. I'm a relative newbie myself. Although there are several history articles under way, I am well-baffled by the medicine and science ones. Some of the students have figured out how to use the different tools, but most have not. And of course they are waiting until the very end of the assignment (14 days and counting). Ah well. We'd love some help with the technicalities of wikipedia, with reviews, or whatever you'd like to contribute. This page linked (above) has a section of articles we've edited. Thanks for the offer! Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. You might point them to wp:cheatsheet for a quick overview of using wikitext (it gives basic information about formatting, linking, using images, and the like), and point them to wp:Neutral point of view, wp:consensus, wp:verifiabilty and wp:talk page guidelines for basic editing policies. I'll take a look at project listing page (you might consider setting it up as a subpage of your user page, which would be easier - I can show you how to do that if you don't know how), but basically let them know if they get stuck on something, they can leave a note for me in talk and I'll help them out. incidentally, there's also a special template that they can use to get assistance from volunteers - have them make a new section on their talk page and type {{helpme}} with a brief description of their problem, and someone cheery will swing by with advice. there's very good response time on that.

I don't want to over-assist (it's an educational process, after all), so give me some idea of how much help you want them to receive. also, it would be useful for me to know what age-range I'm dealing with; I teach college, but I can adapt to younger students if that's what you have. just looked at the page, and it gave me cohort info...

P.s. Auntie? --Ludwigs2 04:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev

We had a very civil discussion at the mediation page about "regression to the mean." That he would go against the agreement now that mediation seems rather underhanded to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I will try to lay off a bit, but for goodness sake this is an encyclopedia. "Regression to the mean" is neither a "hereditarian" OR an "environmentalist" view. It is not about being a racist as some have been called, or a communist, as others have been called. It is basic math. Someone who does not understand something should not be writing encyclopedia articles about it. The gall! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

slr - please, the last thing I want you to do is lay off. I don't want unencyclopedic content going into the encyclopedia, and as I said, I have deep suspicions about this regression thing myself. I just sent you that note because you were making it more personal that it needed to be, and (apparently) getting a bit upset over it. I don't think what Mike is doing is underhanded, exactly: a big part of the problem this article suffers from is that it has too many people with pit-bull tendencies, they get their teeth stuck in an idea, and then they have a hard, hard time letting go of it. Either mike will produce a decent source for what he's saying (in which case it should go into the article) or he won't be able to source it (in which case it won't go in), but if you try to push him away, he'll just come straight back, snarling (as will half a dozen other people on this page, myself - at times - included). I think we have to encourage the idea to develop a bit on the talk page, so that it's clear to everyone whether or not it has any merits. I just didn't want it to devolve into an unproductive fight. --Ludwigs2 02:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your encouragement. But this is the problem: Do you know what factor analysis is? Maybe you do, great. Do i know what it is? Yes, but I do not understand it well enough, so I am not going to try to explain it to you. I won't even try to say anything about it in WP< although I know it is relevant and important. I only write about what I understand. Now, I DO understand regression to the mean, and I DO understand basic population genetics, and I know that what Mikemikev and Captain Occam have written is SO wrong, that they simply do not know what they are talking about. Do you see the problem? When I do not understand something, I do not edit on it. Yet here are two editors who clearly do not understand something, yet they think that they can explain it to others via our encyclopedia. I think that is dishonest, disingenuous, bullshit that in a small way makes our encyclopedia an embarassment, the kind of website college professors tell their students not to visit. Do you see my problem now? Because I know these guys are writing encyclopedia content on things they do not understand, I cannot assume good faith on their behalf. I just cannot. They are charlatans. And if this is how I feel about them, I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article, you know how important AGF is. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what factor analysis is. There are a couple of different approaches to it, and I'm not sure which one Jensen used, but in general the two main weaknesses of factor analysis are a deep sensitivity to unequal covariances and a degree of speculation involved when looking at the discovered 'factors' and trying to determine what they really refer to. for instance, in this case (I suspect) the vast majority of genes were common across all four groups, and the 'factors' were defined by a relatively small number of genes that differed between groups (maybe unique to one group, or shared by only two or three). This small number of genes would certainly have included genes for overt physical differences (hair texture, skin color, bone structure, etc.) so I am not at all surprised that they line up with SIRE data. basically, anyone who's not blind can see their own skin color, and the genes that determine skin color are going to influence the factor analysis, so... it's on my list of things to deal with.

With respect to AGF: I have this same problem with other editors, but I see it in terms of an old quip: it's impossible to tell whether some one is being dense intentionally or being dense because they don't know any better. If I see it in terms of the first (which happens to me sometimes) I get angry and want to stamp all over them; If I see it in terms of the second, I just feel sad, and I get the urge to calmly and persistently bring them up to speed. Unless I lose my cool, the way I see them is my choice, and I always try to make the second choice. It's not always possible to do that, I know, but I personally don't believe that anyone on the R&I page (with the possible exception of Faye, god love her) is really trying to push an extreme position as truth. They are just misinterpreting the science a bit, and I think they will come around (at least partway) with some fairly calm discussion. Of course, maybe I'm misinterpreting the science in my own right (I'm good, but I'm not perfect)... gotta be open to the possibility that the other side has some good points.

I can see how frustrated everyone gets with this. I wish there was some way I could convince everyone to stop and take ten deep breaths and reread before posting a comment; that alone would go a long way to making this a better article. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I mentioned earlier

Ludwig, could you please take a look at this? It seems to be an example of the problem I discussed with you a little while ago, where other users revert my edits while refusing to cooperate with my efforts to discuss them. In this case Mathsci has told me as much: that he will not respond to the justifications I provide for my edits when he reverts them, because he does not believe that they warrant a response.

Nobody other than me and Mathsci seems to be involved in the discussion at that page, so at the very least it would be useful to have someone else offering their input there. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He's now doing the same thing to me that he did to you a few weeks ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_of_community_topic_ban_for_Captain_Occam_for_attempted_tag_teaming

Not that I think there's a danger I'll be indef banned (which is what he's proposing there), but I'd really like it if this time around the admins could do something to prevent him continuing to hijack AN/I threads like this. Since you're who he was doing this to previously, your input there might be useful. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ugh. --Ludwigs2 03:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that some of the people at AN/I are asking for an explanation of what I find problematic about Mathsci's behavior, I think now's the time to bring the problems we've been having with him to the attention of admins. I've deliberately left out a few details of this in my own explanation, particularly how he's behaved towards you, because I figured you'd be able to explain that better than I could. Would you be OK with filling in the rest of it? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Occam, I'll take a look at it, but I'm not fighting a war here. I wish Mathsci would stop his particular brand of unpleasant behavior. I wish you'd stop your particular brand as well. don't look to me to take your side in the fight, except in ways that will eventually end all of this. I'll play politics when I have to, but I don't do it willingly. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn’t think of this as a “fight” between him and me. That’s not how I think of it. I think of myself as one of five users who’s been raising NPOV problems with the history of the race and intelligence controversy article, problems that I’d like to see fixed; and my problem with Mathsci was just that he was making this more difficult for us. (At least, that’s all it was before he started trying to get me banned.) Trying to improve that article in accordance to the current consensus about it, and to stop having unrelated AN/I threads get hijacked like this, is all I’m after also. I’m just being a little more vocal about it than the other users who are in my situation, either because I’m more active than the rest of them or because I have less patience about this sort of thing. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You've made it personal. I spent a lot of time trying to get you to step back and approach the article calmly and deliberately, and you chose not to. If you had chosen otherwise, you wouldn't be having half this problem. I don't know what to tell you man - I doubt that anything is going to come out of this one way or another, but if you were wise you'd take a lesson from it and realize that getting to focused on his bad behavior isn't ever going to do you a damned bit of good. I don't want to stir up anything more about it, because I think the whole situation is stupid. I'll deal with Mathsci when and if he puts me in a position where I need to, which isn't now. --Ludwigs2 06:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar for your mediation work on Race and intelligence, where many issues are now being resolved. I considered many barnstars, but having watched (and been involved in to some extent) the talk page debates, I thought this was the most appropriate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

LMFAO! I fear I have no choice but to humbly accept. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Making the box around a self-contained suggested change

Sorry to bother, but I just added a new proposal for R&I here [6]. When you did this as mediator, you had a cool way of putting the proposal in a special box. I looked at the archives for the mediation, but couldn't figure out how you did it. Any suggestions? David.Kane (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I used {{quote box}}. I modified it in talk - take a look at what I did. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! David.Kane (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting of race and intelligence to pre-mediation version

I’d predicted that this would happen, didn’t I?

The discussion about it is here. Not that I really expect this change to last, but I figured you might have something to say about the idea of discarding the three months of work you put into this article. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

help w template

Hi Ludwigs,

I'm failing miserably w a simple modification of a template. It's {{Abbr}}, where I want to add the option of formatting the text, for when using it as a pop-up gloss for poorly supported fonts. I'd like to add a third parameter switch, which will format the param. 1 text with {{unicode}} or {{IPA}}, and eventually other formats (Arabic, Indic, etc). (Actually, I'd like to have the 1st parameter be the switch if there are three, or revert to the existing code if there are two.) However, I can't figure out how to add the {{...| of the format code without it either messing up the parsing of the switch and if statement, or being displayed as simple text. Can you help? kwami (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

the code needs to look something like this:

<abbr title="{{#tag:nowiki|{{{2|}}}}}">{{#switch: {{{3|}}}
    | unicode = {{ unicode |{{{1|}}}}}
    | ipa = {{ IPA |{{{1|}}}}}
    | {{{1|}}} }}</abbr>

the second bit (about switching parameters around) is impossible a royal pain if you're simply trying to expand this template - there's no way for the template to distinguish between the old use of parameter 1 and the new use. You could do it without too much trouble if you wanted to create a new template, and forward this template through with the parameters repositioned - is it worth the effort, though? --Ludwigs2 18:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of an #if{{{3}}} function. But I notice that if I add a third parameter to the existing template: it's simply ignored: {{Abbr|aoeu|snth|k}} = aoeu. Therefore I should be able to simply expand the existing template, as long as I don't mind having to put the switch is position 3.

The reason I wanted it in position 1 was because that would make it easier to update articles with 'replace all', but I can just use AWB.

Thanks for the help! kwami (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one other problem: Unicode works great, but the {{IPA}} template already has a move-over popup saying it's IPA, and this negates the intended mouseover. Any idea how to prevent that?

Mathsci

I really think you ought to post diffs demonstrating what's problematic about Mathsci's behavior in the AN/I thread. Most people's default assumption there seems to be that his behavior is fine, so they'll need to see specific evidence of what's wrong with it before they'll believe otherwise. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect - your comments on ANI are not helping the situation right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

George, I'm not sure who you're talking to, but if it's me, I don't see how my comments are hurting any either. This makes at least 6 ANI threads that Mathsci has started or hijacked in efforts to get people in trouble around the R&I (starting with a half-assed effort to hijack a thread and get me banned) - enough is enough. the poor sot needs to learn that he needs to behave like an adult.

Occam, please allow me to do things the way I think is best; your approach to the problem is not exactly a success story, yah? I'm interested in ending the problem, not exacerbating it. --Ludwigs2 04:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Ludwigs2. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the WQA discussion, I think you've responded admirably. Mathsci's response is shameful. I hope you'll give him time to refactor. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'd really like to see this issue resolved, whatever that takes, because (frankly) it's a headache (for everyone). --Ludwigs2 04:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Block Notice

I came here from that Wikiquete page and immediate found above more incivility and personal attacks against Mathsci "poor sot needs to learn that he needs to behave like an adult" etc. A quick look at recent diffs revealed some more incivility and personal attacks against him on other pages calling him arrogant, implying mental illness etc. This is completely unacceptable. You seem to be an experienced editor who should know better. You have been given a series of hints from other admins which haven't worked and provoked more incivility. I don't know the history but I am afraid it cannot justify the incivility. In looking at block length I have considered (1) the fact that any other warning seems likely to provoke more incivility (2) the fact you really ought to know better (3) the fact that it is with considerable reluctance that I block an experienced user for this kind of bad behaviour. I am therefore blocking you for 48 hours with a strict proviso that any admin should can unblock you with my blessing should you produce any kind of genuine apology for your recent conduct (which would imply you had recognised the problem and the block was no longer needed). --BozMo talk 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems unbalanced. whatever I have said about Mathsci, he has said far more extreme and unpleasant things about me (not to mention others), and with much greater frequency. I'm more than happy to reign myself in, if that's what you'd like (ruth be told, I was just trying to get Mathsci to pay attention and stop being uncivil). I would expect you to issue the same request to Mathsci.

If this is intentionally unbalanced (for whatever reason), please let me know, and I will voluntarily close this account and move on to other things. I like wikipedia, and I have a lot to contribute in my own way, but there is no point contributing to the project if some editors have administrative leave to be aggressively rude. I'm a good editor, and I don't really deserve to have people riding my ass every time I try to do certain things. I'll happily leave it in the hands of the drama-prone, if that's what you think is best. --Ludwigs2 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked you for the happiness with which you say you will reign yourself in. I have not seen Mathsci's provocation but you really mustn't retaliate (and if I see it I will deal with it). --BozMo talk 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it, and I'll stand by my word. re Mathsci: Would you like me to provide example diffs? I can start with his unmitigated attacks on me in ANI of a few weeks ago (where he tried to get me banned because he didn't like the way the R&I mediation was going), or with diffs from R&I pages where he has accused/insulted me in any number of ways. I don't want to drag you into it if you're not interested, but I am tired of his ad hominem approach. If not, he's opened a wikiquette about me, and I'll probably (as a matter of self-defence) be addressing the issue there. --Ludwigs2 19:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette is a good place for it. It may be me who deals with it there or it may be someone else, that's how it is meant to work. --BozMo talk 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

ok. I still seemed to be blocked, however... did you lift it? --Ludwigs2 20:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

P.s. - looks like an autoblock of some sort kicked in. --Ludwigs2 20:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock cleared x2 –xeno^talk 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Grazie! --Ludwigs2 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Informed

You are informed that we are not "friends," and that you are not to assume that I will take kindly to you saying things like "and Hipocrite, save your breath - threatening me isn't going to do you any good, and you've never given me a reason to give a shit about what you think," regardless of what emoticons you put after it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I never assumed we were friends, H (an unfortunate circumstance, but I don't need to be friends with you to edit collegially). I was simply forestalling what seems to be your standard approach in situations like this. If you want to play games like that with me, then it is in everyone's best interests if I corral you into a more sophisticated approach. Sooner or later you'll realize that dumping on me won't have the effect you intend, and then you'll have to start making reasoned arguments against me, which can only work to Wikipedia's benefit (whatever the outcome). I'm a great fan of reasoned arguments. Take this as an encouragement for you to reach that realization sooner rather than later. --Ludwigs2 16:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But Ludwigs, why should I "start making reasoned arguments against" you when you don't "give a shit about what [I] think"? I think instead, you're going to need to up your game - your frequent incivility is becoming disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

when you do use reasoned arguments, I will give a shit. I've got nothing against you, H, and I'm always interested in useful feedback. --Ludwigs2 16:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You ignore my useful feedback, and preemptivly discourage it by stating that you don't ""give a shit about what [I] think." What I think is - yet again - you are not seen as an honest broker by one side of your mediation. Regardless of if you are or are not an honest broker, you need the trust of both sides to proceed. If you can't regain MathSci's trust, you can't mediate. Further, a mediator does not have any special powers in a mediation - and, in fact, has an obligation to inform people who think they do have special powers that those people are wrong. You didn't do this. Now, I've presented you, yet again, feedback. Do you give a shit? Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Ludwig, you might want to look at the AN/I thread again sometime soon. A topic ban has been suggested for you there also, and one of the arguments being presented by the editor who wants this is that you didn't handle the R & I mediation properly. (Incidentally, this is now coming from Arthur Rubin rather than Mathsci.) --Captain Occam (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

whatever. I'm tired of ANI, and I don't really give a flying fuck about the drama. so far as I can tell, you all have written something like 100 times as much material bitching each other out as you have editing the article. it's ludicrous, and the more you keep arguing with them, the more you perpetuate it. let them whine; get back to editing the article. --Ludwigs2 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the intention of the thread is to get all of us topic-banned, that’s probably what’s going to happen if we all just ignore it let them agree with one another. Considering they’re trying to get you banned also, I’m a little surprised you’re okay with that.

Besides, the only difference between perpetuating one of Mathsci’s AN/I threads and not perpetuating it is that as long as it’s currently active, each of his new complaints against any of us is just a new section of his existing thread. On the other hand, when one of his threads gets archived without resolution, he always posts a new thread about his next batch of complaints within no more than a week. As far as I’m concerned, there’s barely any difference between those two outcomes. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

everyone getting topic banned is unlikely - just because Mathsci loves to beat the war-drums doesn't mean anyone particularly listens to him. I've had editors bitching and moaning about getting me banned almost since the day I started editing here; you're established enough as an editor that it would probably require an ArbCom decision to ban you (assuming you don't start doing something stupid, like sock-puppetry), so why are you worried? Mathsci assumes he's an Important Person, and you feed his vanity by acting as though he really were important, and since he's not the kind of person who will willingly give up having his vanity fed, you're creating a never-ending cycle by fighting with him.

But I feel like I'm talking to the air: it's obvious to me that your vanity gets fed just as much as his does in this debacle. You don't want to stop fighting with him, because you want to 'defeat' him (whatever that might mean to you). I suspect that both you and he would be bored out of your minds if you settled down to nice, quiet vanilla editing, and if things got too quiet, one of you (whoever got bored faster) would start stirring up an argument again. as I said, it's ludicrous. the two of you could have written a frigging book by now, if you weren't wasting your time typing out all this nonsense. --Ludwigs2 06:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you’ll find that if Mathsci can stop stonewalling, edit warring and forum shopping at AN/I, I’ll be very happy to work together with him. I actually appreciate his diligence with these articles when he devotes some of his efforts to improving them, but I wish he could do learn how to do this while also cooperating with other users.

By the way, there's now a proposal in the AN/I thread about an AN/I ban for Mathsci, to stop him from continuing to dominate this noticeboard with his endless complaints, if you have anything to say about that idea. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chinesemusic)

Currently, the Chinese Music template pushes the POV that Taiwan is not part of China. I try to change it to be more inline with the other templates, such as the Chinese Cuisine one (Template:Cuisine of China), with one section on PRC and one section on ROC. But I can't get it to look right. Maybe you can take a look at it? T-1000 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what goes with what, here. the simplest way to do what you're asking would be to change the 'subregions' parameter to something like:

|subregions      = '''PRC''' <br> 
{{do list | link1 | link2 | link3 | ... }} <br> 
'''ROC''' <br> 
{{do list | link1 | link2 | link3 | ... }}

try working along those lines and see if you et what you're after. --Ludwigs2 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle bug

Hi Ludwigs,
can you please check whether WP:TW/BUG#353 is still happening for you in Safari? And please make sure you bypass your browser cache first. I've recently made some changes that should make Twinkle startup more reliable on Safari and Chrome, and I hope that the issue you observed was fixed by that as well.
Thanks, Amalthea 13:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also have another look at WP:TW/BUG#349, please. Cheers, Amalthea 13:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

New AN/I complaint about Mathsci

Hi Ludwig, I’m not sure whether you’re intending to still participate here, but if you are I thought you might want to know that there’s a new AN/I thread about Mathsci’s personal attacks against other editors. This one was posted by user:Rvcx, who’s been experiencing Mathsci’s behavior for the first time within the past week, so as someone who has a lot more experience with Mathsci I thought you might want to offer your input there. Are you interested? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle bugs

Hi,
User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 9#Twinkle bug was archived before you saw it, I think. Might be that those bugs are resolved.
Cheers, Amalthea 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bug 353 seems to be resolved. with respect to bug 349, however, I need to find some vandalism to test it on. If you want to set up a test page and make a couple of edits that I can revert (don't worry, I won't actually report you as a vandal!) we can test it out that way. otherwise, when I run across something that's revert worthy I'll report back. --Ludwigs2 17:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You can use this or that. Amalthea 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This bug does not seem to be resolved yet. on the second page, when I reverted using rollback vandal it took me right back to the page itself. there were no errors in the javascript console, but that may be because of the page reload (i.e., the errors were on the original page, and not retained when the new page loaded). The first page, for some reason, I can't revert at all using twinkle. don't know what's up with that. it seems to do the revert just like the other page, but no changes are made and nothing shows up in the history. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And you verified that you aren't just blocking popups in your browser? Amalthea 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

lol - no, I didn't, because I always leave that setting off. but yes, in fact that was the problem. Now I have to figure out how the heck the popup blocker got turned on. sorry for the confusion. . --Ludwigs2 18:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. :) Amalthea 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Statute of limitation?

Hi, Ludwigs. I was curious if you were aware of a "statute of limitation" on WP:OUTING. Say, if someone posted what they assumed was the name, place of residence, academic credentials, alma mater and current place of occupation of an individual on Wikipedia without the permission of that individual, but this went unnoticed for several years (due to the editor no longer being active on Wikipedia), and the individual in question never objected (due, again, to inactivity), would it still be considered an offence? This isn't hypothetical, mind you, and it involves someone we both know. Besides the question of offence and possible reprimand, however, shouldn't this information be deleted immediately by oversight? Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd ask me, unless it involves me in some way. Does it? So far as I know there is no statute of limitations, and speaking from an ethical perspective, oversight should probably be used regardless of how old the outing is. Whether or not there should be further administrative action would be a matter for debate. Would the information have been considered outing at the time it was posted? Was the intention at that time malicious? Does the editor outed object now? does the outing editor even remember having done it? If it were me, I'd drop a private line to an admin and ask them to do the oversight first, quietly (since that probably needs to be done regardless), and then go on to debate whether any further action is needed. --Ludwigs2 15:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why I chose to ask you, either. I guess partly because we both know the person involved, and you seem pretty knowledgeable regarding policy (at least much more so than me). Sorry for pestering you with it, but I really didn't know who else would respond to the query - which in itself is a bit weird, I admit.

In response to your questions: Seeing as the post contains the full name of the individual and his (then?) current location - neither or which were even hinted at in any of the editors comments - I think it would definitely be considered as outing. Also, the "outing" party was involved in a nasty dispute with the individual, which resulted in that individual leaving Wikipedia after being treated in a very rude manner. Thus, I think it qualifies as malicious. I don't know if the outed individual cares, but he did note that he wished to preserve as much of his identity was possible, in order to protect his real-life career. I doubt that the outing editor remembers having done it.

Oh, hell. I'm terrible with the beating-around-the-bush thing. Take a look at this. I ran across it by chance today, and thought that at a bare minimum, that the post needs to be deleted. I almost deleted it myself, but I just knew that would open up a nasty can of worms.

Again, sorry to post this here if it puts you in a bad situation. Delete it immediately if I've done something wrong and/or direct me to whomever needs to be alerted to this. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, really. I don't see any reason to delete it immediately after four years, and I've left a message with an oversight admin who I trust will handle it properly. Much as I'd like to, I'm not going to dredge up a 4-year-old mistake as a weapon (even though he would - and has - done that to me). it sucks being ethical - --Ludwigs2 16:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. Thanks for alerting an oversight administrator; I wouldn't know where to begin with that. Cheers, --Aryaman (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)