Biohistorian15

  Hi Biohistorian15! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Murray Rothbard that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I've been using the feature erratically. I'll try to stop. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't have access to the article you referenced, but does it actually mention Judith Butler in it and say that she is alluding to Nietzsche? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, just found your message here cleaning up... I corrected this somewhat contrived edit of mine just now. I hope this helps. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am a new editor so I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place to send this, but I wanted to say I received your thank you notes this morning, and I greatly appreciated it! Great way to start the day and still getting my sea legs here.

Best, and thank you,

Bluetik Bluetik (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, no worries! While I'm relatively new too, I'm really beginning to figure it all out. If you have any expansive questions, you can always email me as well btw. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings.

First off, thank you for your excellent work, although you sometimes fail to distinguish between mainstream conservatism and separate ideologies such as libertarianism and fascism.

Given your insistence on including a section on Western media in a global template for conservatism, I created a new one called Template:Conservatism in the Western world, into which I incorporated your Media section. I also moved some other sections from the old template into this new one. I see this as a strategic move in order to avoid Western-centrism in the standard template while also identifying Western conservatism as possessing certain historical characteristics such as Christian values, monarchism, imperialism, and a relatively positive view on liberty. Meanwhile, Asian conservatism—for example—is characterized by Asian values such as collectivism, filial piety, and ancestral worship. Trakking (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

While transferring large parts of the standard template into the Western template, I excluded Russian elements, since prominent Russian conservatives such as Konstantin Leontiev, Aleksandr Dugin, and Vladimir Putin have been anti-Western. Trakking (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sure. However, I did try to supplement certain Islamic theorists to counter-balance my euro-centrism before, e.g. Muhammad Asad, Ahmad Fardid, Ali Khamenei, Ruhollah Khomeini, Sayyid Qutb and Ali Shariati. I really don't see why we couldn't just include some of these theorists in the "Intellectuals" section, you supplement some respective journals from the Arabic context and we call it a day.

On top of that, we could, in fact, add some Russian theorists and publications too.

With the East Asian variety I am unconvinced. Including figures like Confucius may be problematic, and AFAIK the attached template only contains politicians under "people" anyway. However, we could include something from the media section!?{{Conservatism in South Korea}} Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Khamenei and Khomeini are already included in the Politician section, where they most belong. Shariati is too leftist; Fardid is too obscure. However, Asad and Qutb are notable and influential, so I'll add them to the template.

Yes, Confucius is wayyy too proto-conservative, if "conservatism" means a modern ideology that originated in the late 18th century as a reaction to the French Revolution and its children liberalism and socialism. I have added Yukio Mishima—a great, although eccentric, representative of Japanese ultraconservatism. Trakking (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was actually looking at that template yesterday and wondered the same thing. But I clicked on a random name and it said "writer," so it's obviously a mix. I'm gonna go ahead and organise it. Would be great with another prominent intellectual representing the Far East. Trakking (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

On a closer look, I cannot find any proof that Muhammad Asad was a conservative. Although he had personal ties to the Saudi royalty and was a proponent of an Islamic state, there is also accusations of him being a Bolshevik and modernist. Trakking (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, looks good after all. Two questions though:

• Why not title the template along the precise lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_conservatism
• Is Brazil ("Janismo") a sufficiently Western country?
  • Would likely imply Gomez Davila, Bukele etc. come back in as well...

Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I knew there was an article called ”Western conservatism,” but on a closer look it turned out to be about a form of conservatism in Western USA. Thanks for informing me about Janismo, which I had mistaken for Mellismo; it has been removed now. We could create another template for Latin conservatism and include it in the article Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America. What do you think? Trakking (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds reasonable. I will be very busy ensuring NPOV over at the Eugenics article this and the next few weeks, but may personally get into creating more templates after that. On that note, might I ask for some elementary aesthetic/functional formatting help from a more experienced editor, such as yourself, over at my newest sidebar? Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great initiative. The template looks good, but in accordance with Wiki norms I would diminish the image to about half its size. Trakking (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, just did as you recommended (couldn't find precise wiki rules relating to it though). Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I believe that it is more of an unwritten norm than an official rule to keep images in templates rather small. Trakking (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nonidentity problem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sparrow. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of eugenics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedigree.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am well aware. Though if you are referring to the "Dysgenics" article, it is/shouldn't be subsumed by that category either way. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Your comment above –– that edit warring to add an opinion piece titled "Research on group differences in intelligence" to the article's "Further reading" section [1][2] isn't subsumed under the race and intelligence topic area –– strains credulity. Here's another alert that appears to be necessary. You've been asked by an experienced editor to please slow your roll within contentious topic areas. I will second that request. Though I have no doubt you believe yourself to be correct (and are in that sense acting in good faith), your actions in topics related to eugenics amount to a Gish galop of POV-pushing which even dedicated editors will have a hard time keeping up with. For someone who has been editing the encyclopedia for less than six months, your pace of getting into contentious arguments is indeed concerning. I understand that you may have come to see me as an opponent, perhaps even an ideological opponent, but my goal in reverting you from time to time, and in posting here, has everything to do with protecting the encyclopedia's core policies, including especially in this case WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am in between degrees. Is it somehow illegal if I plan to overhaul the eugenics and dysgenics articles to more accurately reflect scholarship?

I think many of your edits are sensible, but I am personally very uncomfortable with contributors that are strongly on the deletionist side of matters. I hereby ask you to please perform manual reverts when it is clear that someone just spent 2h writing a paragraph and you just take issue with a single sentence. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for giving me this insight into your motivation. I saw that elsewhere you state that you are writing a thesis on Wikipedia and have been reading all kinds of stuff about the project. [3] How that squares with being in between degrees I'm not sure, but in any case you are welcome to contribute as much as you like, so long as it is in line with policy and community norms. But here's the thing: contentious topics are marked out for a very good reason. It is relatively easy to lose one's editing privileges if one refuses to behave collaboratively within them, or indeed disputes the ground rules over and over in a way that becomes onerous to deal with. I've seen it happen probably a hundred times. When experienced editors advise you to slow down –– way down –– it is vital that you at least hear us out. Complaining that it's just a small clique of power-users with good connections to some admins that's responsible, and I'd likely soon be banned if I raised the issue on any other noticeboard [4] gives me the sense that you may not have the requisite faith in the consensus process to last long here. But I hope that isn't so, since you clearly have strong research and writing skills that could be useful to the project, and I too think that many of your edits are sensible. I do, however, think that your sense of what constitutes mainstream scholarship with regard to eugenics is quite noticeably off-base, and I believe that in time a consensus will emerge to revert a great number of your additions. I simply don't have time to mount such an initiative at this time. Thanks for hearing me out. Generalrelative (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that thesis is already finished, and I still like it here for now... You are right, I do not trust the "consensus" on most articles but will try to abide by guidelines anyway.

I understand that the lede may have to be rewritten etc. etc., but trust that this time serious removals of content (as opposed to additions, that is...) will be briefly discussed on the talk page first. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only time for a brief reply now, but see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. The latter is policy. Generally speaking we do try to hash things out on talk whenever possible, but the onus does ultimately lie on the shoulders of the party seeking to include disputed content. For this reason, large reversions may sometimes be necessary, until consensus for inclusion is determined. Generalrelative (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are once again edit warring on the page Dysgenics, in what is very clearly a contentious topic area related to WP:FRINGE science. [5][6] Believing that this area should not be considered fringe or contentious does not make it so. I will ask you to self-revert in the interest of collaboration. Generalrelative (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.

Edits like this [7] are the definition of WP:PROFRINGE. Please cut it out. It is onerous to have to patrol your many, many edits knowing that from time to time you will inevitably pull something like this. Here are some other examples: [8] (my revert explanation: [9]); [10] (my revert explanation: [11]); [12] (my revert explanation: [13]). I could go on and on. These are just a few that I've taken the time to revert. Many more of your thousands of edits over the past 6 months deserve scrutiny, and I simply do not have the time. The fact that you often make sensible edits does not exempt you from taking due care when editing contentious topic areas. Generalrelative (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, sorry about the Gwern link, didn't know there was a decisive WP:NOBLOGS.

Secondly though, you will certainly not have to continue (specifically) "patrolling" my various edits personally as this is against WP policies.

If I look at some of your edit history I can surely find dozens of moves on your part.

Furthermore, you do not personally own "contentious topic areas", and thank god for that! Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. I will unfortunately have to continue following your edit history until you either reform or are prevented from making this type of PROFRINGE edit by administrative action. That's one legitimate (if boring) way that ordinary editors like me do our part to maintain Wikipedia's core policies. If you disagree with my understanding you are of course welcome to raise the issue at a behavioral noticeboard yourself. But I think we both know that my understanding enjoys broad community consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we both know that much. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay! So please stop editing against what you know to be the consensus. We don't expect everyone here to agree, just to abide by our collaborative process. Generalrelative (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hope I'm not piling-on here but I have a different criticism of that edit to human nature. It seems to me that ramsey's "life-history trait clusters" described in human nature are unrelated to life history theory, despite having a similar name. Thus, it isn't helpful to add a hatnote pointing to life history theory (or its section on humans), and even less helpful to point to another topic (r/K selection theory) connected via life history theory without explanation. Jruderman (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're right in retrospective. It was a superficial reading, and GR reverted it already. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Dysgenics, you may be blocked from editing.

This comment by an IP editor, which you removed, was unambiguously aimed at improving the article. There was no room for misinterpretation here. Your edit was straightforwardly disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was an edit by a highly disruptive IP-user that also had nothing to do with the thread. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I mean, I think you're at least equally disruptive to the project, yet I have not reverted your talk page comments. You are creating a tremendous time-sink by WP:SEALIONING a pro-eugenics POV across the project which will take a lot of valuable editor time to undo. The only grounds for removing comments are if they're clearly WP:FORUM / WP:SOAPBOX or egregious WP:PA. Simply being mildly off-topic for a particular thread is not a valid reason to delete. In the future you can feel free to add a new header, per WP:SHOWN. Generalrelative (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unironically thanks for the info, but I hope you're not serious. The IP has added unsourced allegations to lots of politically controversial articles. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The comment you removed has a source attached, which makes it removal even less justified. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Theodosius Dobzhansky, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please slow down. You need to review how defining works. Because categoization requires that the feature be a defining feature of the page in question. I have removed several catergorizations that clearly don't meet this. I see no evidence that he was regularly described as a eugenist. Being on the board of the society for demography and social biology isn't enough by itself if reliable sources don't also regularly describe him as being one. Mason (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll re-consider only when I have supplemented better sources for the claim. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Mason (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent changes still don't use edit summaries. Mason (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you are referring to mostly non-controversial additions of relevant templates or to fairly standard template edits - the de facto two other contributors I now quite well by now -, I see no real need. If I am reverted, I will specify my reasoning one time, and usually back down after that. If I have to argue a lot in either case, it's likely WP:OR. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Making your changes clear to other people is obviously a need. It isn't just about the active edits. Its common courtesy and the norm to other people, even if it isn't obvious to you. See the first few lines of the link. Please don't make me ask again.

"An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page. Summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists). According to the consensus policy, in general, edits should be explained." Mason (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know it may not feel/seem like it, but I'm trying to help you here. Mason (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll try in the future. Thank you. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It’s especially helpful to leave edit summaries for your uncontroversial edits to articles where you are likely to also make controversial edits. (And to explain your potentially controversial edits, of course.) Jruderman (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good suggestion, I'll try. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excellent point by Jruderman! It really helps establish your credibility when folks start skimming your edit history if they see that you make lots of reasonable edits Mason (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another case where I strongly urge edit summaries: when the net length change, e.g. +12, may hide a substantial and meaningful change. Example where I changed the first sentence of an article: Special:Diff/1238486383.

I also try to split edits out into chunks that can be explained separately. Crucial if any might be controversial or reverted. You can read more about this part on my new user page.

If I'm not doing anything weird, and neither the page nor my contemporaneous edits are controversial, writing "punctuation gnoming" (or even just checking the 'minor' box) tends to be enough. Jruderman (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philosophy of medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biohacker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Biohistorian15,

I just saw your revert here. The edit summary "Appears to me like a valid and sourced criticism was unduly removed" suggests that there may have been a confusion with another revert, because my commit didn't intend to remove criticism, actually, I'm the one who introduced the paragraph in the first place and I wanted to reintroduced a reworked version of some removed content.

My intent is mostly to explain Torres's view first, with their own words, because I think people would otherwise have the impression that they just believe that existential risks are sci-fi, whereas their position is actually more radical than the one of most longtermists they criticize. The crux seems to be that Torres basically doesn't like technological solutions (and that Torres would be ok with human extinction because that would be less suffering [14], but I decided not to add that to the article).

thanks Alenoach (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sorry. Don't worry, I won't revert again now that I get the context. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you are ok with it, maybe you can undo your edit. It may be more transparent if you do it yourself, but if you prefer I can do it. Thanks. Alenoach (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No need for a template. You know that your edit warring at Flynn effect is against policy. The WP:ONUS is very clearly on you to achieve consensus. I have given a detailed explanation for my revert on Talk. Please self-revert and engage there. Generalrelative (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Richard Hanania shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligence (journal). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:No Nazis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Raladic (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unbelievable, just unbelievable. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We take edit warring seriously here. If you don't immediately stop it, you'll get blocked, not because you are right or wrong, but because you are not behaving in a collaborative manner. Never try to force your preferred version. You are not alone here, and you must respect other editors, so discuss this with them on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Biohistorian15 What is unbelievable? You were edit warring. Don't make that edit again. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Biohistorian, is it okay if I link to the "Please use edit summaries" section from my user page, where I talk about my own thinking on edit summaries? The discussion includes insightful comments, but I thought I should check before adding a link that might be embarrassing. If you'd prefer I omit such a link, I have good alternatives, such as paraphrasing and copying. Jruderman (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll eventually delete the thread though. If you know how that works, you could activate an archive bot and permalink to the thread somehow. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for permission, and thanks for letting me know about the disappearance issue. I think I'll link to a versioned permalink.

imo an archive bot set for 2–3 months would make sense here, but that's up to you. Jruderman (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, if you know how to set it up, I'd be glad. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've set it up for you -- discussions to be archived after 75 days, but the most recent 3 discussions will always remain unarchived. Those numbers can be easily changed if you wish. This addition also put a standard header on your page, which will include links to the archive and an archive search box, once you actually have archived conversations. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Curtis Yarvin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Generalrelative (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Mankind Quarterly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Generalrelative (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Big lie. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The following are averages. I have chosen myself and the two most prominent targets of the original SPI for us to analyze. The diagrams paints a relatively consistent picture I'd argue. Yet more, my diagram would look entirely different if it weren't for the 1 sleepless night I have been "enjoying" every ~1-2 weeks throughout the last year. Please verify for yourself that I, indeed, edited all throughout these 24+h days though!

Biohistorian15 Generated using XTools on 2024-08-30 09:02 Time card

Oldstone James Generated using XTools on 2024-08-10 10:04 Time card

Maxipups Mamsipupsovich Generated using XTools on 2024-08-10 10:04 Time card

Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you actually serious about being unblocked? If so, you really should rewrite this in a manner that there's an admin out there that would take this seriously. You basically use an unblock request as a vehicle to continue your personal grudges and make demands of admins. If anything, this will just get your talk page access removed, and that greatly reduces the chances of ever being unblocked. An unblock request is solely about your conduct, and how you plan to act in the future. Even if you are not, in fact, a sockpuppet, your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior provides more than enough justification to keep you blocked, for the benefit of Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, CoffeeCrumbs, I have now removed the paragraph you were likely referring to. Now, it's not like I was entirely unjustified adding it originally, as the people concerned have, indeed, made statements to the effect that they could easily get me banned... I wrote it last night as I was trying to understand why an admin might have wanted me gone from the plattform at all... But you're right, it only distracts from my actual arguments. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like to stress: multiple users that I have very recently been engaged in controversies with, are known to mass revert suspected sockpuppet accounts while demonstrating (as I see it) few qualms over the edits' respective value. Accordingly, I'd like to clear my name as swiftly as possible. Just in case, then, I'd like to ask permission to ping one or multiple admins I have – from my personal, subjective perspective, anyway – had relatively positive and constructive interactions with after all. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since Doug Weller is not interested in the discussion any longer – though, after reading his talk page, I now understand quite well why – I'd like to, against better judgement, summon the acting admin in this block, ScottishFinnishRadish, to help answer this query.

And, in that case, please note that I will not go on to hold it against you, SFR, if you admit that the whole thing was simply a mistake! Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I spoke to a checkuser who told me that by technical data it was   Possible to   Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) on the technical side. I blocked primarily based on behavioral evidence, which is available to the checkusers, but I'm not going to go into in much detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

So is that it? I can only tell you who I am not.

For one, could you please put on the record who the exact checkuser was. If, for example, it's someone with a long history of engaging in political controversies, this deserves some special scrutiny by other CUs/the ArbCom, don't you think? (Withdrawn by Biohistorian15 after reading the privacy policy.)

I can only tell you that I am the reclusive type that you'd expect, so I hardly even edited in an internet café or something. I use NordVPN sometimes but then seriously doubt that I used any of their open proxies simultaneously with the other user somehow without it showing up as a blocked IP range. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think linking to WP:BEANS when I wrote a rather well-diffed rebuttal to any such "behavioral evidence" in my unblocking request above, is amazingly brazen.

Note that I pinged you with an explicit question in mind: may I ping other admins about this matter, without it being WP:CANVASSING? Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Go for it, although generally admins don't appreciate being pinged to unblock discussions they're uninvolved in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In that case: I have posed open-ended questions to Ad Orientem in the past, and received helpful responses. Furthermore, when it comes to relatively neutral and wholly uninvolved admins with CU privileges, I'd like to first bring in the following people, any one of which may, of course, decline the request, but is still asked to please not prematurely close anything here: Aoidh and Cabayi.

If any of these three, in fact, doesn't "appreciate being pinged to unblock discussions they're uninvolved in", I'd like them to please carefully consider one important ramification of this discussion here: as far as I know, I am currently the only consistently right-leaning editor with a broad spectrum of academic – rather than first-order political – interests to be found on this entire platform (Trust me this much if you trust me at all, as I have spent the last few months going through thousands of user contribution pages just to be certain!)
Now, to the left of me, there is about twenty odd people that may absolutely be trusted to have their perspective heard in this way. Saying this may be against WP:POINT, but I don't really care. I did originally come here with the intention to counter excessive (and, as it turns out, often policy-inconsistent) activism I kept on discovering in the contributions of this de facto cabal.

You might dislike me for my views, so be it. But this block should not be performed on a whim, and I think I am right to hereby begin my call for a dozen or so third opinions on the matter. I can only tell you one more time that I don't have anything to do with Oldstone James and desperately don't want the end of my wiki-career to be the setting of a seriously dangerous precedent. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Before anyone has the brilliant idea to switch my ban from the current one to one per WP:NOTHERE because of this reply (above), I'd like to state in no uncertain terms:

I was/am specifically referring to fewer than a dozen long-term POV-pushing accounts that commonly violate policy without being kept in check. I had, coincidentally, given out (more or less final) user warnings – whatever that's worth – to multiple of these in the two days prior to my block. It made perfect sense that I brought them up to contextualize my so far entirely unexplained ban.

I am, however, not referring to the Wikipedia community in general. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I don't have checkuser rights and am not going to 2nd guess another admin's sock block when I am unfamiliar with the individuals and evidence. A checkuser is likely your best hope. If that has been done and failed to clear you, then any further appeals are unlikely to receive serious consideration. Yes, you can appeal directly to Arbcom, or ask that an appeal be filed on your behalf at WP:AN. but IMO neither are likely to go anywhere and appeals that are seen as frivolous will at some point end with talk page and email privileges being revoked. That said, I am now stepping away from this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you in any case! I am willing to see this dispute through as far as that may go; out of mere principle. If anyone really thinks this is my nth sock puppet, maybe they should also think about why I wouldn't just move on right away like the previous user(s) apparently did. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the best way to get unblocked would be the standard offer in your case. Go 6 months without creating any new accounts, and then request an unblock with a good reason why. That might get you back on the project. Jdcomix (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but I, quite frankly, haven't created any sock puppets at all. I think the stakes in this conversation are actually much higher than many of the contributors may realize; especially noting my claim that I am currently "the only consistently right-leaning editor..." on this platform with any semblance of serious output.

If I can be blocked as a sock puppet of some other user without any real behavioral evidence etc., then I'd surely soon be gone all over again. I am fairly sure I will not return in the case of a decisive and unjustified (first) dismissal of this request. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

>I am currently "the only consistently right-leaning editor..." on this platform with any semblance of serious output.

You're not. And even if you were, that's not a reason to give someone special protections.

>If I can be blocked as a sock puppet of some other user without any real behavioral evidence etc.,

There's a lot of similarity in your content interests. Personally, I don't think that's sufficient, but I don't know all the circumstances behind the scenes. Mason (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Jdcomix that you'd have a good case for a standard offer.Mason (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mason, I'd like to note for any onlookers that we too had multiple disputes only recently (cf. above in the talk page), and there are three good faith concerns I have with this comment:

(a) Would that necessarily require an admission of guilt? (I am not going to go that route in light of, one more time, not being that sock puppet...)

(b) Are you quite certain that you are not mocking me here? Honest question. I really don't know for sure, but it appears unlikely to me that the nth (supposed) sock puppet of an old multiple topic-banned account could simply recover and go on like nothing happened.

(c) Does anyone, if that were to happen, restore the ~200 articles (drafts, wholesale sidebar templates, redirects...) I have created that were now already indiscriminately deleted as "ban evasion"... what do I do in 6 months if every single one of my contributions has been reverted; am I even allowed to undo such actions if they made no sense?

It just seems unlikely to me. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I'd characterize any of these discussions as disputes. I've thought you've been on a fast track to being banned under WP:ARBR&I, but not as a sock. (But I don't have all the facts via checkuser)

a) I don't know. But what I do know is that going to arbcom is going to make you less likely to get unblocked under a standard offer. You're working in a controversial area and have been warned about edit warring in that area repeatedly. I think its more likely you'll get Wikipedia:BOOMERANGed.

b) Not mocking. Although I do find it amusing that you think you're the only right leaning wikipedia editor. You're definitely a viewpoint minority, no doubt.

c) I think creations that you've been the only one to contribute would get deleted. However, there's definitely reasonable doubt that you're actually a sock.

Mason (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Mason, your comment was actually quite helpful. I now understand that you were not mocking me. I'd like to qualify (b) some more because I think it does afford my case some special consideration regarding any possible misconduct or negligence:

There are three kinds of right-wing Wikipedians right now. (1) Boring movement conservatives, i.e. currently Trumpists, keen on editing the articles of politicians and current events. (2) Anachronistic catholic trads that self-isolate into articles about church history etc. (3) The (often illicitly) sanctioned, more academic users in areas like Race and intelligence or Sex and gender – or even more generally so (cf. e.g. Trakking's recent 1RR)[45] – that will no longer really get into any more talk page discussions, noticeboard disputes etc. because they've come to distrust every aspect of the project. The latter, I'm convinced, have often already/will eventually come to deploy sock puppets.

I actively was trying my best to be neither of these three. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not that I still imply ill intent, but I just found a policy, WP:3STRIKES, that directly contradicts the advice I received. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sigh, I don't really have wisdom for you at this point. If you are a false positive, I don't know what the remedies really are at this point. I tend to not get involved in the block/ban side of things, so it's likely that there are nuances to the policy well beyond my understanding. Your summary of the classes of vocal right wing wikipedia editors sounds about right. Mason (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

My old SPI filing is being quoted and misrepresented here. I do not consider an interest in Russian and linguistics to be defining features of this sock farm. I mentioned those at the time to demonstrate the overlap in that specific case. These accounts have never been WP:SPAs. Further, Oldstone James had a demonstrated history of deceptive behavior by creating alt accounts to avoid scrutiny before their main accounts were blocked, etc. so anything they said about themselves should be weighed accordingly. I do not think this editor's style is "significantly different". Both editors are verbose in similar ways. Further, both accounts share a similar interest and perspective on the topic of race and intelligence, as mentioned on the old SPI. The raw quantity of articles which overlap is mostly irrelevant. The substance, POV, and style of those edits are similar. The claim that this sets a "seriously dangerous precedent" is grandiose and silly. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grayfell, while the following summary may first read like it's mocking you, it's really the wider situation I am referring to:

We're getting to the point now, where I seem to stand accused of being some kind of veritable renaissance man. I apparently speak multiple highly divergent language families at a level that – whatever it's worth -, you still consider "verbose", probably play pretty good chess, constantly travel the world, have sufficient expertise in the Septem artes liberales, so to speak, to always get my way up until precisely the dozen or so accounts I have above alluded to being a "de facto cabal" show up.

The latter part of this being, in fact, the only absolutely invariable pattern I can identify here. I do, in fact, think this sets a "seriously dangerous precedent" insofar as these are all perfectly good reasons for (sock-)banning a good 30% of vaguely European academics in the future that may stumble into one of various untoward content areas (e.g. race and intelligence, sex and gender, behavioral genetics, history of eugenics ...).

This comment of mine is arguably not WP:SOAPBOX or simple narcissicism either as I genuinely worry about other users, in turn, being randomly accused of having been my sock puppets once this discussion peters out. Biohistorian15 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

From what I see, you do not stand accused of speaking multiple highly divergent language families, rather you're being accused of speaking English, Russian, French and German, which are not even of seperate language families, much less highly divergent ones. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 14:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ADroughtOfVowels, I think Russian and the rest are certainly quite different in nature.

Further, one more time: I have never demonstrated any deep knowledge of speaking anything but English or German. I have, in fact, offered to prove my German skills, although I won't bother spending my time editing any further if I'll remain blocked here anyway. These skills are those of a native speaker.

If I spoke Russian, I would have long bragged about it somewhere, or e.g. used my cultural background at places I have been characteristically absent from; e.g. Template:Conservatism in Russia, the only one of a dozen or so of these templates that I haven't expansively contributed to. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will, however, now stop replying to de facto WP:SPAs like yourself that were recently created, have a low edit count with strangely much activity at AN/I and yet somehow demonstrate expert knowledge of wikitext. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have a strange definition of SPA. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 16:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dude, seriously... Are you an alt account? If you are, please declare it in accordance with WP:VALIDALT before it's too late. Right now, it looks like you did some constructive editing just to start lending extra support in AN/I disputes etc; which would also make you an SPA. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This latest stunt [46] in which "JamesOldstone" somehow came swooping in here after being blocked for four years with a suddenly new sockpuppet to come to your defense, using the same terminology and overwrought, glib style of writing, just about closes this book. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, there are some superficial similarities; some arguments to the opposite effect though:

• I would never have called another editor "dumb" as that basically guarantees the post being deleted.
• Why would he admit to speaking German when there is otherwise no evidence of his speaking the language? He might have wanted to brag, but how exactly does that help me?
• He used the term "cabal", as in e.g. this picture that is, in fact, commonly used on here (cf. right); I didn't exactly come up with this term.
• What does "glib" even mean? I have been told by every teacher since grade school that I have a peculiar (not necessarily good) writing style. Any details? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah, not buying any of this at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  CoffeeCrumbs, you too are one of the users involved here that has a pattern of activism throughout your contributions. Please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I've made two comments to you (three now with this). Given you probably ought to be blocked for about a half-dozen things, from WP:RGW to WP:BATTLEGROUND to WP:NPA outside of sockpuppeting, I would say "physician, heal thyself." I will, however, take this as a formal request to no longer reply to you, so I will not; I think it'll be a moot issue very soon anyway. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  If/when I am exonorated here, you may well take me to the AN/I over this issue on a seperate occasion. You may, of course, still comment, but repeating the same accusation (cf. the first comment above) in such a fashion is arguably, once more, clearly WP:BLUDGEON.

  As to WP:RGW and WP:NPA I think these do not quite apply; but again, that's not the issue in this discussion either. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Correction to my statement addressed at Mason above: I am now, in fact, losing all trust in the process as we speak. As far as I know, most IP information is only ever kept for 90 days... I'd imagine, all of a sudden, there won't be good enough CheckUser evidence left to exonerate me... Furthermore, I really shouldn't say that here, but there have been multiple objectively suspicious IP editors/SPAs/suspected socks (I count at least three) that have arguably tried to paint me as some sort of disruptive racist in the comments here by rather strange, entirely indirect means; after all, there just aren't any diffs for such a crass accusation. One of these has even begun taking part in highly specific deletion discussions I had been involved in just days prior to my ban. These have not really been investigated in any capacity either as far as I can tell... Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish, having mentioned the privacy policy above (i.e. data only being kept accessible by CUs for 90 days),[50], what I'd also like to know is how you claim to have connected me to a user last confirmed to have been active in 2021.[51]Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

CU data is separate from CU memories and notes. I'm not a checkuser, so I relied on what a checkuser told me of their findings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding, @ScottishFinnishRadish. I have read up a lot on policy in the last few days. (a) "CU memory" might well have meant that my purported puppet master lived in Germany (as he admitted before). Not good enough for "possible to possilikely". (b) Presumably rather expansive "CU notes" are, to my knowledge, absolutely not a common practice (cf. e.g. the explicitly specified upper limit for the rare "system backup"[52]). I recommend that the CU personally reach out to the Ombuds commission before further evidence of such activities is discovered. After all, there is no question that I'll manage getting somebody (e.g., in the ArbCom) to officially check the logs relating to my case at some point. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC) No longer relevant. The OC already stated in an email to me – if I understand them correctly – that no "private information" has been (illicitly) used prior to my ban. I didn't exactly ask them to verify that part, but it is helpful nonetheless. This, after all, makes the complete lack of "behavioral evidence" provided to justify my ban even more troubling. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Final Summary of my situation: The acting admin in my ban for supposed sock puppetry, ScottishFinnishRadish, has posited above that, in his inofficial SPI, he received a "possible to possilikely" rating based on the rather old notes or memories of some unnamed CheckUser. If I am not mistaken, there are only really four CUs that had been involved in Olstone James' different SPIs (cf. [53] and [54] for verification): Mz7, L235, Oshwah and Guerillero.^[a] Memory will hardly be sufficient, and so explicit notes must have been what led to this. There may have been some error in the way these notes were originally taken down and/or have been interpreted prior to my ban.

I ask all four (or ideally three)^[b] of you to approach ScottishFinnishRadish to find out which exact CU conducted my investigation on the 08.08.24. Then, please directly access their purported evidence and compare it against any reliable notes you may hopefully still have from your own past involvement in the case. If you can easily access the actual CU logs from all those years back, please check these as well. If you find any discrepancies in that SPI that'd be consistent with minor negligence, this may already be good enough to de-escalate the situation behind the scenes. Please all do that soon, otherwise you are almost invariably going to be approached with yet more detailed queries during my ArbCom follow-up. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since nobody seems to have even read this, I would like to ping the involved parties (i.e., Mz7, L235, Oshwah and Guerillero) one more time. The case against me is objectively about as weak as it gets, and I'd greatly appreciate if somebody spent 20 minutes actually looking at any evidence they might still have from 3 years ago... Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was not the checkuser that ran the check which led to your block, but today I decided to run a check. I was specifically interested in the JamesOldstone account that claimed to be Oldstone James here earlier [55]. I discovered that that account is   Confirmed to Rhosnes, and those two accounts (Rhosnes and JamesOldstone) are   Unrelated to you. I've posted some more details here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldstone James#01 September 2024. As I stated there, I'm not sure what to think here. The two likeliest theories in my mind are:

1. Rhosnes/JamesOldstone are truly sockpuppets of Oldstone James, and Biohistorian15 is not, or
2. Biohistorian15 is a sockpuppet of Oldstone James, and Rhosnes is someone else who created the JamesOldstone account to pretend to be Oldstone James.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Is there any chance you could revisit this and look at the Rhosnes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) account to see if you have a view on which of the two theories is more likely? Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mz7, thanks for responding. I had been made aware of this sock puppet some time after my ban, but saw no reason for throwing somebody else under the bus if nobody cared either way. I had basically given up on an unblock just yesterday...

If you or ScottishFinnishRadish review my user contributions again, it should be very clear that I and Oldstone James (such as most recently: Rhosnes) are simply not the same person.

At last, I do not understand how anybody would have possibly had the stamina for option (2.); I don't get it. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

From the summary at SPI, it seems that Biohistorian15 is blocked as a sockpuppet of Oldstone James, and Rhosnes also is blocked as a sockpuppet of Oldstone James, even though IP data shows Biohistorian15 and Rhosnes are not the same person. If I understand the situation accurately, it isn't reasonable to block both accounts for that reason. Biohistorian15 and Rhosnes can't both be Oldstone James if they are two separate people. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is indeed likely that I'll get unblocked eventually, although the acting admin in my ban – who has, however, not answered any of my emails before – seems to have had a very urgent message for MZ7 some 30 minutes after their statement above.[56] I predict that the additional reasons he may have come up with for upholding my ban will not prove persuasive, and that I'll instead soon after get retroactively banned for some of the mistakes I have made in the last few months as the new user I actually am (e.g. inadvertent canvassing, unduly open accusations of POV pushing ...); oh, the irony. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for lifting the block, ScottishFinnishRadish. This was a difficult case, and I want to extend my apologies as well to Biohistorian15 for their negative experience here. I do want to address something I think is important: contrary to what Oldstone James claimed, I genuinely don't believe anyone here is trying to act cabal-like and engage in "silencing dissenting perspectives". I think the original block was a reasonable decision based on the information that was known at the time, but after new information was brought to light (the Rhosnes and JamesOldstone accounts) that was not known at the time of the block, we realized we made a mistake, and we fixed it. I hope that we can assume good faith on the part of everyone involved. Mz7 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mz7, a heartfelt thank you for investing all this time into the matter. If I could ask for one thing to improve regarding the conduct of ScottishFinnishRadish - and I am sure many others in his situation before -, it would be to at least try refuting or discussing the (in retrospective) ridiculous amount of evidence I produced in my unblock request. I spent like 50 hours on this; SFR perhaps ten minutes. Further:

• Instead of engaging much, SFR replied with statements like more than one somewhat snarky "go for it" when pinging him with some question.
• He also basically pulled WP:CIR on me when invoking WP:BEANS.
• When I misinterpreted the nature of the CU evidence against me across multiple comments and edit summaries the first 2+ weeks, he also did not correct my assumptions at all. I had to first become a veritable expert on these policies instead. He did this even though it clearly meant that I was spamming CUs with requests to review evidence they couldn't possibly still have access to given the 90-day privacy policy.
• I would be glad if some general aspects of the "behavioral evidence" SFR had, could be unveiled. The m:Ombuds Commission directly told me that it was not "private information", so I think it should have been fully provided in the context of a standard SPI filing.

I think this is still a matter to be very skeptical about. just imagine one left-leaning admin conducts 999 textbook admin actions, and then bans 1 of the most productive right-leaning users without adequate evidence. If it hadn't been for this miracle of sorts, it would have stuck too. If that was even remotely the case, my ~7000 mostly reasonable (global) edits in the last 6 months should really have afforded me a lot more care...

As to the evidence he could have possibly had access to/relied on, I can think of these options:

• Merely the 2021 sock puppet's Berlin IP address(es).
  • I haven't personally been to Berlin in a decade though; not even close.
• Overlap in "user agents" that CUs apparently have access to as well.
  • But then I use the most standard setup ever, hardly a very characteristic one...

I am now deeply insecure about being banned and having much of my content deleted all over again. Biohistorian15 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

He also basically pulled WP:CIR on me when invoking WP:BEANS No, it was a reference to the fact that, if you tell a sock the specific reason why they were identified, they may take your advice and not do that, which would make identifying future socks harder. (Or at least that's what I understood it to mean.) _WADroughtOfVowels^P 08:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As stated in my comments to your criticisms above,[57] I have no idea why a wholly new WP editor like yourself would be invoking complex rules, templates and, somehow, care so very much about my unblock request. Strange coincidences abound here... So very strange. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saying ...a wholly new WP editor like yourself... is somewhat strange, considering the fact that I have been here for over a year.

As for the ...invoking complex rules [and] templates... part, I do not recall invoking complex rules, and I read the documentation for the templates I use. If you are however referring to my explanation above, I got it from a discussion about Icewhiz, wherein someone asked why they didn't have an LTA page yet.

Also, your claim that I care so very much about this unblock request is quite odd, considering I had only commented thrice before this comment of yours. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 11:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I still don't get it. How would you even have found this talk page, dude? Did you randomly open [[Category:Requests for unblock]] and decided to intervene in a highly controversial case? Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

How would you even have found this talk page, dude? Simple, I was looking at the history of some article (I don't remember which), and I thought I recognized your username and went on your talk page. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I guess. You should still be aware that your contributions are some of the most suspicious editing I've ever seen, haha. What can I say. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on persisting! I do think that your editing interests/the presumed sock's history have a lot to do with the initial decision not giving you the benefit of the doubt. I encourage you to spend your time making constructive edits to the project, rather than mulling/ruminating. (AHHH I have to run, my class starts in 22 minutes) Mason (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Mason, have a great day today! You did sincerely answer to my queries, and I appreciate it. I'll probably drop the whole thing soon and return to normality. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made it with about 30 seconds to spare! Also, my intent with my comment on rumination was that although there are advantageous to figuring out what lead to the chain of events that resulted in you being blocked, self care and engaging with the actual project will probably make you feel more engaged in the project/connected with the community. (I say this based on my exhausting experience with Mathsci (talk · contribs) that really ruined my experience for a while.) Mason (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Biohistorian. I have reverted your recent addition of the Conservatism template at Joseph Conrad here as I could not find any reference to Conservatism in the article. Similarly at William Wordsworth. Perhaps those additions should be discussed at the relevant Talk pages? Many thanks. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I had already opened that exact discussion there before you pinged me. I'll look into making the template more concise. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that the format of the template is the issue. Have you opened a discussion at each of those two venues? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Biohistorian15, this is edit warring [58] and I believe you are well aware of WP:ONUS. I reverted your insertion of that template on C. S. Lewis with a clear policy based objection. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. You have added a political template to a section discussing Lewis' religious views. Per ONUS, you need to gain consensus before this challenged information may be re-introduced to the article. And in my view it has absolutely no place there whatsoever. I ask you self revert. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a sidebar template and not an infobox. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An irrelevant distinction. It has no place in an article that does not discuss Lewis' poltical views. Per ONUS, get a consensus before re-asserting. I shall revert it out now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply