| Revision as of 13:12, 30 May 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 48h) to User talk:Black Kite/Archive 31.← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:58, 31 May 2010 edit undoCaptain Occam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,011 edits →Mathsci again: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| As a contributor at the ] article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new ] and the ] and voice your opinion. Thanks, ] (]) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | As a contributor at the ] article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new ] and the ] and voice your opinion. Thanks, ] (]) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Mathsci again == | |||
| A few days ago I talked to you here about my complaint regarding Mathsci violating 3RR on the ] article. You protected the article for a week, and said ] that when the article is unprotected it would not take much edit warring from an article regular to earn a block, regardless of 3RR. Even though this article hasn't been unprotected yet, I wanted to let you know that Mathsci is now edit warring on another related article: ]. | |||
| Here are the diffs of his recent reverts on this article: . I don't think any four of these reverts are within a 24-hour period, so he may not have violated the letter of 3RR, but he's certainly violating the spirit of it. What's more, the material he keeps inserting probably violates ]: this issue has been discussed at the BLP noticeboard ], and saying that he does not think this type of material is allowable under BLP policy. The three users that Mathsci is edit warring against are the ones trying to follow Jimbo's advice about this. (Both about this specific claim, and about his general point that we can’t claim Arthur Jensen advocates something unless he’s specifically stated that he advocates it.) | |||
| The reason I haven't posted about this at AN3 is because at the same time that Mathsci has been edit warring against these users, he's also been making numerous personal attacks against them, which are now being discussed at AN/I ]. Nobody other than Mathsci is being disruptive here, so I don't think page protection is necessary in this case. Could you please take a look at the diffs I've linked to here as well as the ones linked in the AN/I thread, and decide whether there's anything that ought to be done about this behavior from him? --] (]) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:58, 31 May 2010
.jpg)
2007:01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08
2008:09-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19
2009:20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27-28
2010:29-30-31
Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010, to which you were are a party, has been rejected. Full details are at the case page (which will be deleted after a reasonable time). If you have any queries, please contact a committee mediator or the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)<
- please note this does not suddenly mean the name is no longer disputed. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_by_Chris_Bennett_and_Jc3s5h
Hi, I've un-resolved this, please see my comments. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
MoMK
As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Mathsci again
A few days ago I talked to you here about my complaint regarding Mathsci violating 3RR on the Race and intelligence article. You protected the article for a week, and said here that when the article is unprotected it would not take much edit warring from an article regular to earn a block, regardless of 3RR. Even though this article hasn't been unprotected yet, I wanted to let you know that Mathsci is now edit warring on another related article: History of the race and intelligence controversy.
Here are the diffs of his recent reverts on this article: . I don't think any four of these reverts are within a 24-hour period, so he may not have violated the letter of 3RR, but he's certainly violating the spirit of it. What's more, the material he keeps inserting probably violates WP:BLP: this issue has been discussed at the BLP noticeboard here, and Jimbo Wales commented in the discussion saying that he does not think this type of material is allowable under BLP policy. The three users that Mathsci is edit warring against are the ones trying to follow Jimbo's advice about this. (Both about this specific claim, and about his general point that we can’t claim Arthur Jensen advocates something unless he’s specifically stated that he advocates it.)
The reason I haven't posted about this at AN3 is because at the same time that Mathsci has been edit warring against these users, he's also been making numerous personal attacks against them, which are now being discussed at AN/I here. Nobody other than Mathsci is being disruptive here, so I don't think page protection is necessary in this case. Could you please take a look at the diffs I've linked to here as well as the ones linked in the AN/I thread, and decide whether there's anything that ought to be done about this behavior from him? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)