Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:07, 31 July 2010

For Barnstars, see: User:David.Kane#Awards.

Archives

1

Draft stuff

I am going to draft some R&I related material here.

Progress on Race and Intelligence has been made as a result of mediation

I started on Misplaced Pages in June 2006 and first became involved with race and intelligence related controversies in the fall of 2009. A mediation started in November 2009. Over the next 6 months, significant progress was made: compare the version toward the start of mediation with one near the end. Note how the new version was less then 1/2 the length (and now consistent with WP:SIZE) and how numerous formatting problems, incorrect citations, spelling errors, poor grammar, lousy writing and so on were fixed. Of course, the new version is not perfect, but uninvolved editors thought that it was an improvement over the old one. Important issues that had been the source of much conflict over the years were resolved. For example, "Research into race and intelligence is not "fringe", some of the conclusions drawn from that research are highly contentious and need to be presented as such in the article." This was extremely helpful since it obviates the need for fruitless and repetitive debates about whether or not WP:FRINGE applies to the work of Arthur Jensen and others. I think that Ludwigs2 deserves a great deal of credit for the success of the mediation. Note, importantly, that no other editor volunteered to do the mediation after the first two mediators left the process. Critics of Ludwigs2 should recognize that the choice we faced was not between Ludwigs2 and some hypothetical perfect mediator but between Ludwigs2 and nothing. We all owe him our thanks.

Progress on Race and Intelligence continues to be possible

True progress on Race and Intelligence and related articles seems to require a different editing procedure. Consider three concrete examples of such progress: the History section (here and here), the Debate Assumptions section (here and here) and the Lead here. All these cases resulted in significant improvements to the article and featured widespread consensus among editors of very different viewpoints. Common factors: 1) Drafting was done on the Talk page, not in the article itself. Only after the section was complete was it moved into article space. 2) Drafting occurred over many days, allowing all editors time to register their opinions. 3) Comments from all were repeatedly solicited and incorporated. 4) The entire section was edited at once, thus allowing compromise over what to include, what to exclude and the relative proportions devoted to different material. Standard editing procedures have produced seemingly endless conflict and edit wars at this article for years. I think that this new procedure --- which I call multi-day section-editing --- should be required going forward.

Guidance is needed on applying WP:BLP to contentious claims made about living persons

I suspect that many complaints about my behavior will center around recent disputes about material related to Arthur Jensen. The original debate is here. Several similar debates have followed, summarized here. Throughout, my behavior has been guided by my understanding of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The critical question, obviously, is just what "poorly sourced" means in this context. If a reliable source reports that person X says that Arthur Jensen wrote Extreme Claim A, do we just report that fact? Or should we demand to see evidence from Jensen's actual writings that he did, in fact, make Extreme Claim A? I would appreciate guidance from Arb Com on this situation. I argue that my interpretation has been made in good faith and, as evidence, cite the fact that uninvolved editors like Jimbo Wales, Off2riorob, and Rvcx were supportive of my position. (They may have changed their minds since then. See the full discussion for context.) Whether or not my deletions were right or wrong, it would be helpful if Arb Con were to provide guidance on this topic so that the policy is more clear going forward.

A list of sources that would allow for a thorough article to be written

Here is a list of sources that, alone, would allow us to write a thorough and complete article on Race and Intelligence. Restricting the article to these sources is not the Misplaced Pages way, but the standard approaches have failed for this article for years. Why not try something different?

• Ian J. Deary (2001), Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192893211
• James R. Flynn (2008), Where Have All the Liberals Gone?: Race, Class, and Ideals in America, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521494311
• Loehlin, John C.; Lindzey, Gardner; Spuhler, J.N. (1975), Race Differences in Intelligence, W H Freeman & Co, ISBN 0716707535
• John Loehlin (1982), Robert Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Human Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, p. 176-193, ISBN 0521296870
• Mackintosh, N.J. (1998), IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, ISBN 019852367X
• Earl Hunt and Jerry Carlson (2007), "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence", Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 (2): 194–213, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00037.x
• Nisbett, Richard (2009), Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393065057
• Neisser, Ulrich; et al. (1996), "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns" (PDF), American Psychologist, 51: 77–101 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Kenneth K. Kidd (2005), "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics" (PDF), American Psychologist, 60 (1): 46–59, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.46, PMID 15641921 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Special issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law:
  • Rushton, J. P.; Jensen, A. R. (2005), "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11: 235–294
  • Robert J. Sternberg (2005), "There are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005)" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 295–301, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.295 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Richard Nisbett (2005), "Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005)" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 302–310, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.302 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Linda Gottfredson (2005), "What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 311–319, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.311 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson (2005), "The cultural malleability of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic hierarchy" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 320–327, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.320 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen (2005), "WANTED: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 328–336, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.328 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Do any of these sources not belong? Are there other sources that are must additions?

Submitting evidence

I noticed your edit summary - no, evidence doesn't have to be submitted in one piece. It does need to stay under the word limit and avoid personalizing things, but you're welcome to work on it as you have time. As things get started, usually the drafting arbiter will give a timeline or let people know when a proposed decision is in the works so that they can be certain to have their evidence together by that time. Hope that helps. Shell 18:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Traveling

I am on the road and will only have intermittent access until June 27. David.Kane (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Campus Ambassador at Harvard

Hi David, thanks for your interest in the Misplaced Pages Campus Ambassador role. More details about this role can be found at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador. Here is also a little bit more information; in a nutshell:

The Campus Ambassadors are crucial components of the Misplaced Pages Public Policy Initiative. Volunteers in this position will be in charge of training and supporting the participating professors and students on Misplaced Pages-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add references, how to add images, etc. Campus Ambassadors will also help recruit other people on campus to contribute to Misplaced Pages articles, for example by setting up Misplaced Pages-related student groups and by organizing "Welcome to Misplaced Pages" social events. In general they will become known as Misplaced Pages experts on the university campus (in your case, on the Harvard University campus). The estimated time commitment for this role is 3 to 5 hours a week, possibly slightly more at the very beginning and very end of the semester. The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.

If you are interested in being a Misplaced Pages Campus Ambassador at Harvard University, I would like to send you the application form. What email address can I send this to? (Feel free to email me this info if you prefer: alin@wikimedia.org).

Thanks. I look forward to hearing back from you soon!

Annie Lin, Campus Team Coordinator
Alin (Public Policy) (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why less is not more

Do not feel beset over the suggestion that limiting sources for R&I, at least as a trial, has not received a vote of confidence. I believe the solution lies in appropriate representation of viewpoints as described in scholarship such as Hunt's and Carlson's—which is different from "embattled hereditarians versus embattled environmentalists." R&I is not a replay of the Hatfields and McCoys. More sources will provide the means to inject current scholarship while making for less whipping of authors for works published decades ago (while still accounting for their impact) and, most of all, telling a far richer account of the R&I subject matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji considers you an agenda account (I think).

I suspect that WeijiBaikeBianji's last comment here is intended to be directed mostly at you, since you're the only editor who's recently removed a significant amount of content from the race and intelligence article. I thought I should point this comment out to you, in case you want to reply to it.

I notice from Cool Hand Luke’s comment here that he considers the presence of agenda accounts to be the primary problem with this article, so whether you or I get lumped into that category may be a matter of more than just whether we have a derogatory-sounding moniker attached to us. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Race and intelligence. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't try to generate a mini army, via canvassing off-wikipedia, to gain ownership and control of the point of view of article content on wikipedia. It appears that you have been canvassing off-wikipedia to draw like minded editors to backup your point of view and win content disputes. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. The concensus at Admin Noticeboard is that your allegations of outing and requests for administrative action against an opponent in a content dispute were without any merit. Please try to be more cautious when making allegations and requesting admin action against other editors. Assuming good faith, when dealing with your fellow wikipedians will make yours and everyone elses edit experiences on wikipedia much more pleasant and productive. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs for disruptive editing

This editing is the behavior currently under arbitration, which you appear to have felt free to continue without regard to what the pending Arbcom case ruling will likely say and without regard to existing Misplaced Pages policy.

As you are continuing behaviour which you have been repeatedly told by multiple persons is inappropriate, I have blocked you for 24 hrs.

It is unusual that any party in an Arbcom case is blocked for conduct during the case. However, that is because the vast majority of those who are involved in such cases cease most or all controversial behaviors during the duration of the case. There is naturally much higher scrutiny of everyone's actions during such periods. Please be advised that disengaging from content edits related to the disputes here would be a wise choice going forwards, until the decision is finalized. You appear not to be able to edit in the topic area without engaging in controversial edits, so simply avoiding it is a much safer approach.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: How to contact admin

I'm not an Admin. Since you are now blocked, the fastest way to contanct one is to just ask to be unblocked and then an Admin will contact you. If you visit the talk page of an Admin (or any editor for that matter), you'll see on the right hand side of your screen in the toolbax the "email this user" feature if the editor as enabled email. You can then communicate your request privately to the Admin. Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, darn it. Forgot to put this on when I blocked. The instructions for an unblock request are in the block template. My apologies for not including the block template at block time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Although this block will soon expire, I would still like to appeal it because I believe that it is "not necessary to prevent damage or disruption". I will voluntarily avoid editing Race (classification of humans) (the location of the edits that Georgewilliamherbert objected to) for the duration of the original block, but being blocked entirely prevents me from participating in a current Arb Com case. Although various editors have complained about my edits elsewhere, no one has (I believe) accused me of disrupting those proceedings.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Although I haven't looked at the details of the dispute, I accept that you want to give evidence at the arb-com case, and will therefore unblock you. This is on the proviso as you stated, that you do not edit Race (classification of humans), or any related pages, for the remained of the block period. Request handled by:  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks! David.Kane (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tivedshambo said he was unblocking me but the unblock does not seem to have worked

{{unblock|User:Tivedshambo said he was unblocking me but the unblock does not seem to have worked. Could someone check to be sure that I am unblocked?}} David.Kane (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, there was an Autoblock that I've cleared now. Please try again if you can edit now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Now working. David.Kane (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I forgot to check for autoblocks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-blocked

I have blocked you for a further 24 hours. As I stated above, I made it a condition of unblocking you that you did not edit Race (classification of humans), or any related pages, for the duration of the original block. However, you immediately edited Race, Evolution, and Behavior. As before, you can use {{unblock}} to appeal. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

{{[[Template:I would like to appeal this reblock. This resulted from a good faith misunderstanding on my part. Instead of reading Tivedshambo's unblock statement closely, I skimmed it. (This is, obviously, my fault. But, in mitigation, I will note that my main focus was on figuring out how I could still be blocked when Tivedshambo claimed that I had been unblocked. Surely, I should not be punished for his mistake?) My initial appeal stated clearly that "I will voluntarily avoid editing Race (classification of humans) (the location of the edits that Georgewilliamherbert objected to) for the duration of the original block . . . " As soon as I read Tivedshambo's statement: "This is on the proviso as you stated, that you do not edit Race (classification of humans)," I assumed that I was good to go, as long as I did not touch that article. That was, after all, the proviso I stated. Of course, I should have immediately noted that Tivedshambo was insisting on a proviso much more extensive than the one that I had "stated." But I did miss that. Moreover, even if I had looked closely at that, it would not have occurred to me a book entry like Race, Evolution, and Behavior (which I have had almost no involvement in) is actually a "related" page. (No one at the Arb Com case has, for example, suggested that an article like Race, Evolution, and Behavior is part of the Race and intelligence nexus of articles.

But the more important point, I think, is not this wikilawyering on my part. Look at the actual edits I made in Race, Evolution, and Behavior. They are as innocuous as can be. Indeed, they are exactly the sort of editing that these articles need more of. Is this the sort of editing that Misplaced Pages admins seek to punish?

Summary: This block "is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption." None of these edits has been damaging. None have been disruptive. The only purpose of this block seems to be punishment for a good faith mistake on my part.|I would like to appeal this reblock. This resulted from a good faith misunderstanding on my part. Instead of reading Tivedshambo's unblock statement closely, I skimmed it. (This is, obviously, my fault. But, in mitigation, I will note that my main focus was on figuring out how I could still be blocked when Tivedshambo claimed that I had been unblocked. Surely, I should not be punished for his mistake?) My initial appeal stated clearly that "I will voluntarily avoid editing Race (classification of humans) (the location of the edits that Georgewilliamherbert objected to) for the duration of the original block . . . " As soon as I read Tivedshambo's statement: "This is on the proviso as you stated, that you do not edit Race (classification of humans)," I assumed that I was good to go, as long as I did not touch that article. That was, after all, the proviso I stated. Of course, I should have immediately noted that Tivedshambo was insisting on a proviso much more extensive than the one that I had "stated." But I did miss that. Moreover, even if I had looked closely at that, it would not have occurred to me a book entry like Race, Evolution, and Behavior (which I have had almost no involvement in) is actually a "related" page. (No one at the Arb Com case has, for example, suggested that an article like Race, Evolution, and Behavior is part of the Race and intelligence nexus of articles.

But the more important point, I think, is not this wikilawyering on my part. Look at the actual edits I made in Race, Evolution, and Behavior. They are as innocuous as can be. Indeed, they are exactly the sort of editing that these articles need more of. Is this the sort of editing that Misplaced Pages admins seek to punish?

Summary: This block "is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption." None of these edits has been damaging. None have been disruptive. The only purpose of this block seems to be punishment for a good faith mistake on my part.]]}}

Note to reviewing administrators

For my part, I'm inclined to assume good faith here. I admit to making a couple of mistakes: Firstly I didn't check for autoblocks, and secondly, a comment I meant to leave for David ended up on the wrong page (due to my having too many windows open at once). And maybe I should have made the conditions clearer. However, I'll leave the unblock request up for second opinion. Feel free to revert the block if you feel it's justified. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): per above comment by blocking admin Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks for the unblock. And, Tivedshambo, no worries. I realize that blocking vandals and other miscreants is a thankless task and that being blocked from Misplaced Pages for 24 hours is hardly going to kill me. But, at the same time, I hope that blocking admins will take special care before blocking established editors. David.Kane (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My block is over

I am making a good faith assumption that my blocked time is over since the original 24 hours has expired. I realize that the above reblock and unblock make this a somewhat difficult story to follow, but if anyone (or at least any admin likely to get angry) thinks that I am currently blocked anywhere, please tell me here. David.Kane (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)