Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: , 29 July2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Over a period of several years Milogardner has been editing articles on mathematics, particularly Ancient Egyptian Mathematics. As mentioned below, he is quite enthusiastic in his writings. He is also however unable to write clearly, and unwilling or unable to distinguish properly sourced information from his own original research. This has been an ongoing problem.

During this time a number of editors have interacted with him over his use of his own mainly self-published work, blogs, etc., (WP:SELF, his use of original research, his style problems ignoring our style guidelines, and the lack of references provided. It has been quite a challenge to work with this editor when approached about these problems. His responses have often been overly long, and consisting of long rambling discussions of his own calculations and observations.

It seems that Milogardner sees Wikipedia as a forum or blog where his latest ideas about problems in Ancient Egyptians mathematics should be discussed.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

That Milogardner will:
 * Accept the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia Policy on Original Research. (WP:OR)
 * Cease using materials from his own blogs, websites and self-published books as a source. (WP:COI)
 * If no secondary sources exist, publish in a reliable vetted source before seeking publication in Wikipedia.
 * Write articles in a clear and concise manner (WP:MOS), avoiding lengthy calculations (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK), and avoid negative critiques of other researchers. (WP:POV)
 * Avoid lengthy discussion on talkpages. Discuss issues in a clear and concise manner.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

There have been a host of problems with the edits made by User:Milogardner over the years. The problems date back to at least 2006. The articles and edits fail to meet Wikipedia standards and violate several policies.
 * 1) Repeated violations of WP:OR. Materials from the author's blogs and websites are added. These results are original research and do not represent material found in what are considered reliable sources.
 * 2) Repeated violations of WP:COI. Milogardner repeatedly adds links promoting his own blogs and websites.
 * 3) Repeatedly edits are made with WP:Verify issues. Sources are either not given, or given in such a way that checking claims is difficult.
 * 4) Destructive editing. Even after many attempts to clear up issues relating to WP:MOS text is repeatedly added which is a rambling description of some mathematical ideas. There is no effort made to create a clear and concise entry. The nature of the edits violates theWP:NOTTEXTBOOK policy.

The issues are further outlined in the Evidence of disputed behavior section below.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Original research

 * In Egyptian Units of Measurements the addition of conversion factors is based on original research. The previous values are well documented in the literature. The addition of the note "(RMP 42, 43)" shows that the author is trying to rediscover the units and their relations from the original text. Further evidence from the same article:
 * text edit shows further edits when the ongoing research was found to contain mistakes.
 * text edit addition of reference citing his own name, but no other identifying characteristics of the source.
 * Comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics shows that the edits were based on original research (which proved to be wrong) and hence based on ongoing research.


 * Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll edits include the removal of cited text which was replaced by original research. More here:, . Same article, in this edit a planetmath page written by the same author is used as a reference.


 * Rhind Papyrus 2/n tables removal of original research in 2008. Further evidence includes:
 * "chronology" includes recent results as discovered by Milogardner. The edits are in 2008 and refer to advances made in 2008, hence this work cannot be appearing in any reliable source as defined on Wikipedia. Original addition of original research can be seen here.
 * text edit. Claim in last paragraph is original research.
 * text edit The claimed Liber Abaci related result is original research and appears in a self-published book by Milogardner.

Conflict of interest
Personal blogs and pages written elsewhere have regularly been added to articles. A few examples:
 * Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 2/n table,, , has materials added which are Gardner's own blogs at other locations on the web.
 * Ancient Egyptian multiplication contains an addition of his blog that does not even specifically address the topic of the article.
 * Egyptian Mathematical Leather Rolladdition of blog to section.

Disruptive editing
Edits have been known to destroy the integrity of the article. These are a few examples:
 * Ancient Egyptian units of measurement text edit At this point the table is turning into a disaster. Entries do not follow the column headings.
 * Lahun Mathematical Papyri Material duplicates information already on the page. No inline references provided. Some books mentioned in the middle of the article. Undefined terms and poor writing style make the article impossible to read.
 * Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 2/n table shows how articles written by User:Milogardner are so bad that a complete rewrite is necessary to fix the problems.
 * This edit to arithmetic progression adds out-of-context material about ancient Egypt to an article having very little to do with Egyptian mathematics.
 * Largely owing to the efforts of User:Milogardner, the article Egyptian mathematics degraded over a period of about four years from an intelligible revision to one that was borderline nonsense. A complete rewrite was necessary to fix the article.

Ownership behavior

 * Much of the edit history of Egyptian fraction between October 2006 and December 2008 consists of Gardner (or various IPs with behavior similar to Gardner's) attempting to return the article to his idiosyncratic version and terminology, and being reverted. There are too many diffs to list them all, but examples include (Oct-Nov 2006, IPs not confirmed as Gardner)   (Oct-Nov 2007)    (Oct-Dec 2008)

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * No original research, especially
 * WP:PRIMARY
 * WP:SYNTHESIS
 * WP:COI
 * WP:RS
 * WP:V
 * WP:DIS
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:MOS

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Current discussion at Talk:Ancient Egyptian units of measurement
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
 * User talk:Milogardner shows editors trying to explain that he shouldn't use his blogs as sources. The editor supporting Milgardner,, was, ironically, indefinitely blocked for OR (after ArbCom, etc didn't work).
 * AnnekeBart Talkpage Archive, diff of the same page showing discussions. The problems with WP:OR, WP:COIand the writing style WP:MOS are repeatedly raised:, ,,,

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
The discussions above show Milogardner's difficulties in listening to the advice of a number of other editors. After all the discussions about these issues Milogardner still includes his own WP:POV and WP:OR. The discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics clearly show an unwillingness to acknowledge that there is WP:OR involved. Despite the combined criticism of some 10 editors, Milogardner still says "We are dealing with an intellectual issue that Wikipedia rules, when fairly applied, will resolve in my favor."

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Gardner is very persistent, very enthusiastic about the specific subject of ancient Egyptian mathematics, and quite knowledgeable about that subject. Those would all be very good characteristics in a Wikipedia editor, if only he weren't also unable to write clearly, unwilling or unable to distinguish properly sourced information from his own original research, and uninterested in maintaining a proper balance of topics in articles that are in part related to his interests and in part not. I spent two years trying to deal with Gardner in Egyptian fraction, and considerable time later on in Liber Abaci. My talk page archives from that time period are full of long diatribes from him. Eventually I gave up editing the other articles he frequents, leaving them in the unreadable state that Gardner's editing leads to, because it was too frustrating getting nowhere with him. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: See User talk:David Eppstein/2006, User talk:David Eppstein/2006, User talk:David Eppstein/2007 (and the section immediately following that on the same subject), User talk:David Eppstein/2008c, and User talk:David Eppstein/2009b.
 * I have mainly interacted with Gardner while working on Ancient Egyptian units of measurement, Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll, and Lahun Mathematical Papyri. I have also rewritten Egyptian mathematics after it had been left in this state. The many edits are hard to trace but the state of the article was largely due to Gardner. It has been difficult and frustrating to work with Garner. Instead of addressing problems raised regarding original research, conflict of interest and inappropriate edits, he writes long pieces that usually do not address the issues at hand. Some edit comments have been known to overstep the bounds of civility: "corrections tomorrow ... wow how silly ..." in a response to edits made by me with citations from recent literature. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  8:21pm  • 10:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the main at least. Paul August &#9742; 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * &oelig; &trade; 18:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed his personal website lists many links to Wikipedia articles as "online publications", so perhaps WP:OWN should be emphasized as corollary to WP:OR in this instance. Hexagon70 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

I accept the letter of Wikipedia's rules, and the main points mentioned above, with one proviso. A fair reporting of the body of scholarly Egyptian math literature is a major concern. The Wikipedia group of editors that signed this complaint are led by a scholar that stresses algorithms in Egyptian math topics. Algorithms are reported by scribes. Scholars over the past 20 years increasingly report on algorithms. But, at times, the algorithm group deletes well documented scribal formulas. For example, Lahun Mathematical Papryus documents a volume formula that was used in RMP 43. Robins-Shute documented the formula as algebraically derived from one RMP 42 volume formula. Discussions on this topic have broken down into name calling. The formula and Robin-Shute's algebraic discussion were removed. I wish the name calling, and removals of scribal formulas, to stop. Let us all return to reporting Egyptian mathematics as scholars reported controversies and non-controversial topics. Best Regards to all, Milogardner (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As a small reminder, scholars document scribal math on two levels, transliterations and translations. Controversies appear on both levels. For example, scholars translate RMP 41 by a khar unit divided by 20 to 100-quadruple hekat and 100-hekat, a conflict that continues to 4800 quadruple hekat and 4800 hekat (per Clagett, my choice). The formula level continues the conflict. Few controversial issues haven been resolved by algorithm scholars or scholars that report formulas in translations. Patience and respect for scholarly transliterations and translations will be honored. Interdisciplinary approaches are emerging to create professional solutions to classes of controversies. I look forward to interdisciplinary approaches completing their work, one class of controversy at a time.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Best Regard, Milogardner (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by OlEnglish
This seems exactly the type of situation the WP:OR policy was written for. Expert knowledge on a subject is welcome, but not following the rules makes you no better than Randy in Boise.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  &oelig; &trade; 19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Cirt (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) The Randy in Boise behavior is still occurring. The more he posts, the more it's obvious he doesn't really what he's talking about. Inappropriate use of technical terminology, incorrect representation of contents of papers abound. When mentioned there's the usual verbose attacks and condescending comments. --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary
Delisted due to inactivity; dispute was escalated to ANI where the Community topic-banned Milogardner from Egyptian Mathematics.