Avaya1

[EricBarbour]

I don't find any evidence that Avaya1 (T-C-L) was ever discussed here or on WR.

Despite claiming to be Italian early on, this account has done almost nothing except Israel-related POV pushing for years.
I'm wondering if this is one of SlimVirgin's socks, because it edited Bernard Williams (T-H-L), and various articles about Cambridge
early on, especially Trinity College articles. (SV went to King's College and took philosophy.) Or perhaps this is one of SV's
close co-workers.

Opinions are welcome.

[Poetlister]

I don't find any evidence that Avaya1 (T-C-L) was ever discussed here or on WR.

Despite claiming to be Italian early on, this account has done almost nothing except Israel-related POV pushing for years.
I'm wondering if this is one of SlimVirgin's socks, because it edited Bernard Williams (T-H-L), and various articles about Cambridge early on, especially Trinity College articles. (SV went to King's College and took philosophy.) Or perhaps this is one of SV's
close co-workers.

Opinions are welcome.

There's no cotradiction between being Italian and having an interest in Israel.

Umberto Cassuto (T-H-L)

[Captain Occam]

The one thing I know about Avaya1 is that he's the main reason why the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (T-H-L) article went down the crapper about two years ago.

Here's the way this went:

On October 2 of 2011, Ben Kovitz rewrote the entire article in a single edit. Boothelo reverted the bold change, and raised some objections in this thread on the talk page. Later, Boothelo added back a few of the changes made by Ben Kovitz that they both could agree were worthwhile.

It worked about how the BRD process is supposed to work, until Avaya1 came along. About a month later, in these edits, he made all of the same changes that the talk page discussion had just finished deciding not to make. He didn't even comment in the talk page thread to say he disagreed with the conclusion there, he just ignored it. For some reason, neither Boothelo nor any of the other people who'd participated in that thread paid attention to him doing that, so after that the article just stayed in a state that's the opposite of what the talk page discussion had concluded.

The article's been an embarrassment ever since then. In the lead and the first section, more than two-thirds of the sources have nothing to do with intelligence or IQ. The last three sections have all of one reliable source that discusses IQ. Everything else is cited to a self-published web document that's been rejected from every journal where it was submitted, and several more papers that say nothing about intelligence or IQ. Before Avaya1 got involved in it, this article was one of the better-sourced R&I related articles on Wikipedia, but thanks to him it's now one of the best examples of an IQ-related article that's declined in quality.

It's funny that a pro-Israel POV pusher would have added original research opposed to the idea that Ashkenazi Jews tend to have above-average intelligence. You'd think an editor who thinks Israel is the greatest country on Earth would tend to push the perspective that they've earned that status with brains, but the reality usually seems to be closer to the opposite.

[TungstenCarbide]

The one thing I know about Avaya1 is that he's the main reason why the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (T-H-L) article went down the crapper about two years ago.

Here's the way this went:

On October 2 of 2011, Ben Kovitz rewrote the entire article in a single edit. Boothelo reverted the bold change, and raised some objections in this thread on the talk page. Later, Boothelo added back a few of the changes made by Ben Kovitz that they both could agree were worthwhile.

It worked about how the BRD process is supposed to work, until Avaya1 came along. About a month later, in these edits, he made all of the same changes that the talk page discussion had just finished deciding not to make. He didn't even comment in the talk page thread to say he disagreed with the conclusion there, he just ignored it. For some reason, neither Boothelo nor any of the other people who'd participated in that thread paid attention to him doing that, so after that the article just stayed in a state that's the opposite of what the talk page discussion had concluded.

The article's been an embarrassment ever since then. In the lead and the first section, more than two-thirds of the sources have nothing to do with intelligence or IQ. The last three sections have all of one reliable source that discusses IQ. Everything else is cited to a self-published web document that's been rejected from every journal where it was submitted, and several more papers that say nothing about intelligence or IQ. Before Avaya1 got involved in it, this article was one of the better-sourced R&I related articles on Wikipedia, but thanks to him it's now one of the best examples of an IQ-related article that's declined in quality.

It's funny that a pro-Israel POV pusher would have added original research opposed to the idea that Ashkenazi Jews tend to have above-average intelligence. You'd think an editor who thinks Israel is the greatest country on Earth would tend to push the perspective that they've earned that status with brains, but the reality usually seems to be closer to the opposite.

meh. IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they measure a few specific skills that are easy to measure with a pencil and paper test in a few minutes.

[Captain Occam]

meh. IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they measure a few specific skills that are easy to measure with a pencil and paper test in a few minutes.

I'd prefer if we could avoid getting into another argument whether psychometrics is a valid science. This really is just a user conduct issue: adding several sections of original research that had been discussed and rejected on the talk page less than a month earlier. Doing that isn't more or less acceptable depending on what article it's on.

[TungstenCarbide]

meh. IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they measure a few specific skills that are easy to measure with a pencil and paper test in a few minutes.

I'd prefer if we could avoid getting into another argument whether psychometrics is a valid science. This really is just a user conduct issue: adding several sections of original research that had been discussed and rejected on the talk page less than a month earlier. Doing that isn't more or less acceptable depending on what article it's on.

You are right, sorry for the off topic post. It's just that every time I come across people hung up on IQ tests my bullshit meter goes off.

[EricBarbour]

meh. IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they measure a few specific skills that are easy to measure with a pencil and paper test in a few minutes.

I'd prefer if we could avoid getting into another argument whether psychometrics is a valid science. This really is just a user conduct issue: adding several sections of original research that had been discussed and rejected on the talk page less than a month earlier. Doing that isn't more or less acceptable depending on what article it's on.

You are right, sorry for the off topic post. It's just that every time I come across people hung up on IQ tests my bullshit meter goes off.

I would agree with TC, although it's off the topic. My concern is with Avaya and his/her/its editing patterns. The parallels with
SV are considerable, but the Israel/Jewish POVing is more difficult to determine. For all I can tell, this is a "subtle vandal",
who looks like a careful editor but is deliberately trashing Jewish-related articles.

It's another good example of how WP is set up to obscure certain kinds of deliberate abuse, or at least that the setup was
an historical accident, and people who came along after 2004 learned how to abuse the system. That could be another whole
book, showing how to manipulate Wikipedia content without being caught. Avaya1 might be a good test case for it.

[Poetlister]

It's funny that a pro-Israel POV pusher would have added original research opposed to the idea that Ashkenazi Jews tend to have above-average intelligence.

Italians aren't Ashkenazi!

[greyed.out.fields]

It's funny that a pro-Israel POV pusher would have added original research opposed to the idea that Ashkenazi Jews tend to have above-average intelligence.

Italians aren't Ashkenazi!

That's correct. They are Italians. Did you mean Jewish Italians?

[eppur si muove]

It's funny that a pro-Israel POV pusher would have added original research opposed to the idea that Ashkenazi Jews tend to have above-average intelligence.

Italians aren't Ashkenazi!

That's correct. They are Italians. Did you mean Jewish Italians?

The museum of the synagogue in the Rome ghetto makes a point that they are neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardi as their community was established before the destruction of the second temple and the ensuing diaspora.

[Poetlister]

It's funny that a pro-Israel POV pusher would have added original research opposed to the idea that Ashkenazi Jews tend to have above-average intelligence.

Italians aren't Ashkenazi!

That's correct. They are Italians. Did you mean Jewish Italians?

What point are you making? Jewish Italians are just as Italian as non-Jewish Italians. As Eppur correctly points out, they have been there for 2,000 years.

[lonza leggiera]

It's funny that a pro-Israel POV pusher would have added original research opposed to the idea that Ashkenazi Jews tend to have above-average intelligence.

Italians aren't Ashkenazi!

That's correct. They are Italians. Did you mean Jewish Italians?

What point are you making? Jewish Italians are just as Italian as non-Jewish Italians. As Eppur correctly points out, they have been there for 2,000 years.

The point is that anyone (like me), who was already aware that most Italians aren't Jewish, but not that most Jewish Italians aren't Ashkenazi, is apt to be puzzled rather than enlightened, by your statement "Italians aren't Ashkenazi!"

[Randy from Boise]

I don't find any evidence that Avaya1 (T-C-L) was ever discussed here or on WR.

Despite claiming to be Italian early on, this account has done almost nothing except Israel-related POV pushing for years.
I'm wondering if this is one of SlimVirgin's socks, because it edited Bernard Williams (T-H-L), and various articles about Cambridge
early on, especially Trinity College articles. (SV went to King's College and took philosophy.) Or perhaps this is one of SV's
close co-workers.

Opinions are welcome.

Pro-Israeli POV pushing strikes me as exactly parallel to pro-South African regime advocacy in the 1970s and 1980s.

You asked.

RfB

[The Adversary]

I don't find any evidence that Avaya1 (T-C-L) was ever discussed here or on WR.

Despite claiming to be Italian early on, this account has done almost nothing except Israel-related POV pushing for years.
I'm wondering if this is one of SlimVirgin's socks, because it edited Bernard Williams (T-H-L), and various articles about Cambridge
early on, especially Trinity College articles. (SV went to King's College and took philosophy.) Or perhaps this is one of SV's
close co-workers.

Opinions are welcome.

Frankly, I think it is rather absurd to suggest that Avaya1 is a Slim-sock. SV never edited these "general" Jewish issues much (which Avaya1 does.) Also, it is years since SV basically left the ME-area.

And it seems a bit silly if Slim was warning herself about 3RR, don´t you think?

[Poetlister]

Pro-Israeli POV pushing strikes me as exactly parallel to pro-South African regime advocacy in the 1970s and 1980s.

Yes, that's a classic anti-Israel POV line, that Israel is similar to apartheid South Africa. I'm sure the nice mods would object if this thread turned into a discussion abou tthat, so I'll stop here.