User talk:Oldstone James

No, unless the information you removed was found almost nowhere, it's perfectly acceptable per our

WP:NPOV policy which is there to ensure that all major views are represented in relationship to their weight. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Doug Weller: Yes, and the major views here are NOT represented in proportions of their acceptance. As I said, there are numerous studies showing differences in intelligence between self-identified races, one of which I have provided. However, the article neglects all of that and proceeds to claim that there is no evidence for differences in intelligence. I honestly don't understand what's unclear about what I'm saying. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 12:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it at the talk page. The fact that some views may not be represented is not an excuse to remove sourced text. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been warned several times, including by

@Jeppiz: I'm sorry that you found my edits to be unhelpful and felt the need to warn me over them. I will try and bring the issue to the talk page if you still aren't convinced by the end of this message. However, I believe that there may have been a series of misunderstandings which I will address below.

First of all, while I'm not certain of Doug's intents, I'll be surprised if they made the warnings because they thought my editing may have been harmful, as, before this point, I did not make any edits which could possibly be interpreted as reverts. Even though I do have a history of blocks, I have dialed down my editing strategy significantly since my last block and haven't engaged in an edit war - even a minor one - since.

Secondly, I do not believe that I was edit-warring here - nor that I had violated WP:BRD; to quote from the BRD page, "to avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns". Since bringing an issue to the talk page after each edit is inefficient, my current strategy is to make a new edit that I believe addresses the reverter's concerns and see if it sticks; if it doesn't, I am sure to bring the issue to the talk page, as I have explained above. Indeed, I did not simply reinstate my old edit, as seems to be your impression, but instead changed the placement of the statement that I added in the first edit to make it read less trivially, which was your initial criticism. Believe it or not, this strategy has worked very well for me in the past couple of months, and this is in fact only the second time that my new edit didn't stick in that time.

For these reasons, I fail to see how a self-revert is appropriate in this situation. If you don't agree with my new edit, which you don't seem to at the moment, feel free to revert it. That said, before you do, please read the argument that I will present below:

As it stands, the article Israel comments on the country's GDP and standard of living compared to other Middle East countries; however, it doesn't give any indication of the country's economic efficiency (which could be measured, for example, by GDP per capita), nor its standard of living (commonly measured by the HDI) on the global scale. My edit aims to summarise both given Israel's political situation. Alternatively, simple statements of GDP per capita and HDI could be added, but, in my opinion, these fail to factor in Israel's military spendings resulting from political tensions, and hence do not give an adequate representation of the aforementioned parameters (economic efficiency and standard of living).

Hopefully, you understand my point of view. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oldstone James. I reverted your recent edits to the article Language. Your edits changed the definition of language used in the article. I think that such a sweeping change warrants discussion before being undertaken. Please feel welcome to comment at Talk:Language#Definition of 'Language' as you see fit. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I see that you have restored the edits I reverted. I also read your message on the talk page, but have not had time to reply. You link to an essay, WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I did have specific reasons to revert your edits, though, related to the five archived discussions I linked from that talk page section. I believe this is a usual practice, sometimes called the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As I am currently grading a stack of essays, though, I probably will not have time to comment more specifically. I'll flag the discussion at the relevant WikiProjects and see if anyone else comments. Sorry for not responding more substantively at the moment. Cnilep (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine; I just didn't see any contradiction between my version and conclusions of the previous discussions. You're not required to participate in the discussion as long as you don't make edits to the page, which you haven't done since your original revert. The discussion seems to have revived, so we should be able to reach a consensus in the near future.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I noticed that you have started editing articles that are, broadly construed, related to creationism. E.g. [13],[14], and [15]. I don't have any problems with these edits myself, but so you are aware if you are under a topic ban restriction you could end up blocked for such edits.

jps (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap, forgot I still have it. Thanks for reminding me. I should probably appeal to get it lifted. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OJ (I hope that you don't mind the abbreviation)...

I've seen the topic ban appeal at AN. I suspect you know it's very unlikely to succeed. The way you wrote the appeal initially comes across as you strongly believing the ban was a great injustice that needs correcting – whether that was your intent is largely irrelevant – and that your actions since were covered largely as an afterthought. That will put many potential supporters off side. I'm not saying that you must change your views but the approach is poor for the outcome you seek. In general, if you want to ask for something, irritating, upsetting, or offending those you ask is a poor strategy. If you were writing a new appeal, I would suggest thinking about your audience, who will mostly start from the assumption that there was a reason for the ban and look to be persuaded that it is no longer necessary. You appear to be arguing that it is not necessary because it never was, which directs attention to your actions before the ban rather than to those since – that's not to your benefit. If I were in your place and held the views of the ban that you seem to, I would have posted something like:

1. A brief introduction stating what the ban was for, when it was imposed, and by whom (with convenience links, both to be helpful and so that there is no impression that you are hiding the history).

   In MONTH, YEAR, I was involved in discussions and an editing dispute at THIS / THESE WIKILINKED PAGES. During the disagreement, I violated policies on edit warring (or whatever) and the talk page discussions became heated and were seen as tendentious (or whatever). The situation was brought to ANI here (wikilinked) and I was topic banned (link to user talk notification) from WHATEVER by WHOEVER based on a community consensus. I now wish to appeal this topic ban.

2. You need not accept that the decision(s) were right, but admitting to the parts you do agree with is helpful.

   I recognise that my edit warring in article space was wrong and said so here (link). I undertook not to make that mistake again here (link) and I have not done so since that time. I am following the advice given by WHOEVER here (link) of no more than one revert before starting an article talk page discussion. Examples from my recent editing include (links, etc).

3. Disputing what you don't think was fair should be brief and forward-looking, with a focus on what you have contributed since then to give a reason to support you for those who did see the ban as necessary.

   In fact, my statements here and here (links) from before the ban was imposed show that I had already modified my approach before the ban was imposed, which is why I think it was unfair. This led me to making some forceful comments after it was imposed (links) and I requested a block of TIME (link) to gain some space and perspective. I remain of the view that the ban was not needed to prevent disruption and its injustice does still upsety / irritate me. However, one thing I learned at the time from comments (link) by WHOEVER was that there are times to accept that consensus does not support my view or that it is time to step away from an area where it would not be productive to persist. Examples include (with links).
   When I returned XXX months / years ago, I decided that the best way forward was to prove by my actions that the ban was no longer necessary. I would like to highlight my actions in articles XXX, YYY, and ZZZ and talk discussions PPP, QQQ, and RRR (all with links), which show EXPLANATIONS that are different from the approach I took in the original dispute. These are consistent with the undertakings I made here (links) and advice I have received here (links). I submit that they show that, even if you believe that the ban was needed then (about which I disagree), it is not needed now as my behaviour and actions have demonstrably improved since those that I regret from the original dispute.

4. You will be asked about why you want the ban lifted and what you would do in the area. Admitting to any errors on the ban is far better than others finding them.

   I feel that the topic ban is a mark of shame that I should not need to carry. I believe that I am contributing to Wikipedia constructively (other examples different from above if necessary, maybe highlighting the amount of contributions / areas edited since the ban was imposed) and deserve not to have any doubts that I am an editor in good standing in the community. In regard to the XXX topic area, I admit to strong views but remain dedicated to the use of

   WP:ROPE to help to convince you.
   I am also asking for the ban to be ended as my editing follows my interests in an eclectic way. Recently, I was editing about XXX because I had become interested in the topic, which led me to YYY and then ZZZ and then making some minor changes (a grammar correction, another grammar correction plus the removal of an unsourced statement, and a talk page comment) that are within the area of the broadly construed topic ban. I was reminded by jps

   , which I appreciated as I do not wish to be sanctioned for edits that are clearly supported by policy due to an oversight on my part. I hope that these edits will not be taken as a reason to continue my ban.

5. A concluding statement should be positive. If you do choose to ping / notify people, be neutral – either only those you must (like the admin imposing the ban) or everyone involved in the previous discussion.

   Thank you for reading my appeal. I hope that my editing since it was imposed demonstrate my positive contributions to Wikipedia and that I am not a threat to the integrity or content of the encyclopaedia. I will notify XXX, who imposed the topic ban, and also those who contributed to earlier discussions (pings, etc) and am happy to answer any questions you might have.

Finally, please accept that this advice (which you are free to accept in full, in part, or ignore, of course) is meant to help you to achieve your goal. I'm not taking a position on the imposition of the ban because it is a fact that it happened. Taking a new decision that something is not needed now is much easier than arguing that it never was needed. I hope you continue to edit after the appeal is denied and that you can be more successful next time. Cheers! EdChem (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: Yes, I guess it was once again a subtle case of digging a hole (or whatever it is called), as by denying that the topic ban should have been imposed, I was implicitly attacking the voters' views on the issue. Either way, I knew that it wouldn't really help my chances of getting the topic ban lifted, but I did place my hope in the community that they would at least be able to read the entire proposal and evaluate the situation, but it seems like only two editors (Foxnpichu and, much to my surprise, Guy Macon) ended up doing that; others, like Guy and Grandpallama unfortunately appeared to stop at the first sentence. Although I think you warned me even last time that first impression is very important in situations like this one, so I probably should've known better. Also, I think your format would've achieved my goal of explaining why a topic ban wasn't necessary in the first place without undermining chances of getting unbanned significantly, so I agree that I should've probably thought a bit more about it before posting. jps actually suggested doing something similar to what you have proposed (without that much detail, of course). It's just that I didn't want to spend any time on it (ha!), so I just copied and pasted this 9-month-old comment and kind of assumed that people would just agree to unban me as per WP:ROPE (as people did in the AN section below my appeal, even though the original proposal was literally just "can you unban me, please", without any additional input) and that would be it. Needless to say, I was wrong. Anyway, thanks a lot for this template. I think I will use it for my next appeal, if I ever bother to make it.

As to my discussion with jps, notice how I haven't attacked him, his editing, or anything about him in any way. I simply disagreed with him, noting that I respect his opinions, but that my opinions simply differ from his, and I do believe that I addressed at least my interpretation of his concerns. To be really honest, I don't even know what would've been the appropriate response to his accusations or concerns. I understand that his intentions were only good, and I do appreciate that, but I still feel that I have the right to disagree and express my opinions. For example, I appreciate that jps is of the opinion that I struggle to evaluate what is mainstream and what is not. That said, I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, which is why my response to him expressing this opinion was pretty much "you are free to believe that". Let's take another, very similar example, but this time I was accusing jps. This conversation took place a year ago. I pretty much made exactly the same mistake as he did, which is failing to understand that not only do views on whether the consensus is correct differ, but also what consensus even is, and proposed that "when it comes to correcting grammar, don't correct something that you aren't 100% certain is false". As with jps in the previous case, my intention was purely to help. jps's initial response was relatively calm, but he did later comment that "perhaps not everyone would have taken as kindly as I did to the level of belligerence" and that "there are people on this site that would feel justified in lashing out violently if you told them [this]". I think you see what I mean now. I'm not the only who finds opinion-based accusations aggressive and feels justified in not even lashing out, as jps says, but simply being able to disagree. I understand that you might have reacted in a more neutral way, but that's you, and I'm me. Just because you would've reacted better doesn't mean that I reacted wrongly.

And yes, with that last edit, I just gave up. It was mostly just a bit of humour (yeah, my sense of humour is odd).

Sorry if you feel like I'm being defensive again in this comment. I honestly still appreciate greatly your desire to help, and your opinions are very valuable to me. But usually, when I appear to get defensive, I'm just genuinely confused. That just means that I have no idea what is going through my interlocutor's head, and I struggle severely to connect with their way of thinking. In this case, I'm confused as to why jps thinks that my opinions are too firm (perhaps an example would help) and that I my "scholarship" is "peculiar", by which I think he means "my ideas are often on the fringe". Perhaps he still believes that I'm not being genuine when I say that I'm a centrist atheist and that I'm in fact a well-meaning far-right agenda pusher? This would seemingly explain a large chunk of my edits, from my condoning of what he believes to be scientific racism, to my tendentiousness on trying to loosen the manacles on creationism, to even my edits on Carl Benjamin (which, upon further research, I realised were factually incorrect). Might this be it? If you have any insight, please let me know, because I am genuinely interested in both making myself a better editor and understanding other people's point of view. However, you don't have to reply, I'm already thanking for your original post. Thanks a lot! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jps discussion (cont.)

I'm not sure to what end this is useful, but I am going to try to be as succinct and blunt as I can to explain what the problem is.

First of all, read

Secondly, you still haven't really understood where I'm coming from with my concerns and you continue to impart motives onto my commentary which I simply do not have. I am going to outline them below in a (perhaps vain) hope that you might come to understand what I'm saying because, and I guess I'll bold this because the message does not seem to be gettin through, I really do think you have the potential to be a valuable contributor on creationism pages. But the defensive combativeness and the jejune attempts at humor which seem to indicate a tendency to over-personalize disputes continue to give me pause. I think this is where the problem is. You've taken offense to what I'm saying and therefore seem to have a cognitive filter in place in terms of understanding what my concerns are in the first place.

So, let me quote from your "wall of text", as you put it, to see if I can't make one last ditch effort to get through to you.

it seems like your point was that I couldn't evaluate what is mainstream and what is not; to which I replied "we all have our opinions as to what constitutes as mainstream; my valuation, in this instance, differs from yours, but, in my opinion, that isn't reason enough for you to !vote 'oppose', although you are free to !vote whichever way you please". I do indeed question whether you are doing a good job evaluating a body of literature and scholarship, but I am not concerned that you disagree. What I'm concerned about is that you have not been able to articulate any theory of mind as to why I might have a different opinion from you in the first place. Let me be clear again: you do not have to agree with my position. But you have to be able to understand it or at least put on airs as though you can pretend to understand it. So far, all I see is a stubborn refusal to do anything more than agree to disagree. Agreeing to disagree should be the last step in a discussion. If you start from that premise, there is no way we can collaborate which is a problem on a website that functions on the basis of collaboration.

You have also criticised my scholarship as peculiar, by which I think you mean not mainstream. However, this links directly to the point that I just made. Of course I understand why you would think that - because not all people have the same opinions, as I have explained - but, in my opinion, this by itself does not necessarily render my scholarship peculiar. For my scholarship to really be "peculiar" - or, in more rigorous terms, fringe - it needs to lack evidence from reliable sources, which it doesn't almost by definition, as my opinion on almost all topics defaults to the opinion which is best supported by available evidence. You are getting a little closer to being able to explain what I'm arguing here, I think, but it's still so laden with the "we disagree!" rhetoric that it's hard to see if you really do understand my critique. You are arguing that your approach is to adopt an opinion. Already this is a peculiar approach given

And, as to defensiveness, consider this: not only have I already conceded that I am pretty defensive by myself, and a Wikipedia ban will not change this, but I don't even think it's a bad quality for a Wikipedia editor to have. On the contrary, there have been many occasions where, through stubbornness and "defensiveness", I have been able to get my way and actually improve the article (the AiG page is one example). This is going to be a problem, I promise. Stubborn and reactionary responses like that turn Wikipedia into a

Now, it seems like you disagree, but that's fine: as I said, our opinions will differ, but I don't think that really warrants a topic ban. Here you seem to be arguing that I am in favor of the topic ban. But I did not say I was in the discussion. So why do you think that this is my opinion?

You are accusing me of holding fringe views and not willing to change my mind about them, which is already pretty offensive to me, because I my approach is pretty much the opposite: align my position with that of the scholarly community, but always be able to change it if it is shown that I have misinterpreted this position. Here's the bug: if you come to interpret certain aspects of the scholarly community through a problematic lens, your approach will end up propping up fringe views. I have seen this happen a lot on this website. People who are convinced their approach is magnanimous and "aligned" tend to fall into traps in seeing only the evidence that confirms their particular take. The issue is not with the mechanics of forming your opinion, the issue is with not being self-reflective enough to understand that it is impossible for any one individual to be an efficient interpreter of the literature. Otherwise, you end up seeing evidence for the global flood in every rock. (That's a metaphor for what I think may be going on here, please don't think that I'm accusing you of being a young Earth creationist.)

You are then accusing me of not being able to edit on behalf of the other party's point of view in a discussion of a topic ban that I earned by doing exactly that. No. I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated that you understand my critique. I don't think you understand why I'm concerned.

You are additionally subtly implying that all of the above is partly the result of a lack of competence to read in a "non-facile" manner. It feels this way, perhaps, because ultimately our interaction is entirely textual and we are talking about interpretation vis-a-vis reading/writing. I do worry about

And you are using all of this to support a topic ban which should not in a million years have been imposed. Am I? I am expressing real concern about your abilities to function in contentious environments at this website. You are engaging in histrionic exaggeration about the onerousness of being sanctioned at this particular website. If you want to demonstrate that it is not an issue, you can certainly go edit creationism content on a variety of other Wikimedia sites. You can go to non-Wikimedia sites and work on creationism. You can do any number of other things which don't require the diplomatic chops I think you haven't yet developed for engaging in the English-language Wikipedia environment surrounding these subjects.

Tell me you would not get at least a little bit defensive in this situation. I won't tell you that because I would feel as you are feeling. That's part of the way this place works. I work all the time on trying to rise above this

I am just genuinely confused as to why you'd want me to stay away from creationism-related articles specifically, or from any articles for that matter. Even if you believe that I'm an incompetent, narrow-minded, insufferable fringe-pov pusher, how would that be a problem if I stop at the first revert of my edits? It would be a problem because it's not the adherence to the superficial rules that is my concern. Rather, it is the ability to collaborate that I am worried about.

And why does it have to be creationism-related articles of all topics? Because that's a contentious and historically fraught topic. We've had arbitrations over the subject and there are discretionary sanctions for a reason. The task is not for everybody. It might be for you, but if you cannot understand what I'm saying, it's going to be tiresome.

I just spent 15 minutes composing this response. That's a lot of time to devote to a back-and-forth, but I'm doing so because I am holding out hope that there might be a way to break through the armor and get a good editor out of this. You aren't the first editor I have tried to go to bat for in this way, and others may call me naive for doing so (the ones !voting "oppose", for example). But I think I see something here that can be useful and I'm just hopeful that you can develop that bit of your personality so that the topic ban lifting becomes a slam dunk.

jps (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Okay, thanks a lot for your comment. I think it explains a lot. Let me address your points one by one:

A case of WP:JURY: yes, I agree. In my reply to EdChem, I called this "digging a hole", but I think this is what I meant. You'll find my reasons for such an approach in that same reply. Notice how I said "reasons" and not "justifications", so please don't mistake this for me not being able to admit my shortcomings.

I still haven't understood where you're coming from: based on what you've written in this comment, it seems like both of us are seriously confused about the other party's thought process, me perhaps being the bigger offender. Don't take this as a criticism - perhaps I should've explained my position more clearly. But it is true that I didn't have a clue why you were saying what you were saying and what your motivations were. I think this comment provides a bit of insight into that. I don't think there is a cognitive filter, because I genuinely tried to understand your thought process, but the comments just kept getting more and more bizarre. Thanks for writing the part in bold, because the message that I got from your earlier comments is that you think of me as a really stubborn, intransigent fringe pov pusher, for which the only hope is that they can at least realise that their views are fringe. But, thankfully, that doesn't seem to be your image of me, based on this comment.

I don't have a theory of mind as to your judgement of my source evaluation abilities Well, I do, but it might not be correct. So far, my understanding is that you believe that I am not capable of evaluating professional sources because you are convinced that your evaluation is correct, not least because other experienced editors have supported this evaluation. In my opinion, this is a mistake, one which I've also fallen victim to in the past (remember that debate about definite articles that we held last year?), but I certainly understand why you'd think that - as I said, I made similar mistakes in the past myself. Otherwise, I indeed am not really sure, but I'm trying to understand. If what I have described above is not the reason, can you very briefly state your motivations for arriving at such a conclusion? If you simply have doubts about my competence, I can tell you that, at university, part of my degree involves evaluating professional sources, and so far I've gotten the highest marks in such modules. So I don't think competence is an issue here. You also mention my approach which starts with the premise that we should "agree to disagree". Rest assured that this is NEVER my premise. This is in fact one of the phrases that I hate the most, because what this phrase means in the majority of cases is that both myself and my interlocutor have learnt nothing from the discussion. I think this is actually one example of where you have misinterpreted my reasoning: I didn't just say that we should agree to disagree because I did not share your opinions; I said that because I thought that your very objection was based on the fact that you don't agree with my opinions, as I have described above. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. In reality, I'm more than open for others to point out my weaknesses and to prove me wrong. In fact, most often I try and do that myself, because this way I can actually improve myself as an editor/person/whatever else, and life simply becomes easier this way.

My approach is to adopt an opinion Of course, everything is an opinion. Forgive me for redirecting the blame here a little bit, but I think that's where we part ways and where most of our disagreement stems from. You seem to think that your evaluation of the sources is not an opinion but a simple recital of the contents of these sources, and hence that this valuation is not prone to any subjectivity. While I understand the logic behind this approach, that is not the full story. In fact, your valuation and my valuation of sources on the same subject may both be completely systematic, and both may end up polar opposites of each other. For example, you may have missed some important sources, I may have misinterpreted some other sources, etc. The fact that our valuations differ does not mean that one of us is really bad at interpreting sources and the other one is really good at it - it just means that we are both human and are both bound to make errors. A great example of this phenomenon in my opinion is your judgement of scientific consensus on the topic of race and intelligence: you have deemed that the consensus is that there is no connection between (self-identified or by ethnic divisions) race and intelligence and have suggested that my valuation that there is is part of scientific realism and is hence a fringe view. However, it seems like not only is the consensus (as per sources cited by Cherio222) that there is indeed such a connection, but that the view that this connection is explained at least in part by genetics is not even fringe. I hope that you understand my position and can see where I am coming from.

AiG contributions In fact, my only quibbles with the lede were 1) that the tone was not encyclopedic and 2) that it was not previously stated that AiG's rejection of scientific investigation was part of their dogma, and it instead seemed like the article was simply being salty at the organisation. Both of those issues have since been resolved AGAINST the preliminary consensus, as almost everyone initially protested against the introduction of the clause "out of biblical inerrancy".

I feel that your other comments are quite minor, and I agree with most of them, anyway. My post is already getting really long, but I really hope that you read it. I don't expect you to respond to everything, but I do think it would help my development if you could formulate your position on the most important topics. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three things:

So far, my understanding is that you believe that I am not capable of evaluating professional sources because you are convinced that your evaluation is correct, not least because other experienced editors have supported this evaluation. Thanks for articulating what you think I am saying and your theory of mind in this matter. Now, let me offer my reply that this is not what I think. What I think is going on is that you make judgments about sources that may appear at first to be correct to a variety of people, but upon more careful analysis the way they are described, analyzed, and evaluated requires a level of care and delicacy to be explained accurately and fully. In controversial articles at Wikipedia, getting the precise wording correct is extremely difficult. This is where I think you enter into what I've described as "peculiar scholarship", you seem to typically get stuck in a thought process where you think your analysis has a clarity that is unimpeachable when in fact it may be misleading to our readers for one reason or another. To me it seems that once you've made your mind up as to an interpretation of sources, it is very difficult for you to see where the problems in offering such an interpretation may lie. Given your

WP:Wikidragon

tendencies, this leads quickly to conflict.

You seem to think that your evaluation of the sources is not an opinion but a simple recital of the contents of these sources, and hence that this valuation is not prone to any subjectivity. While I understand the logic behind this approach, that is not the full story. In fact, your valuation and my valuation of sources on the same subject may both be completely systematic, and both may end up polar opposites of each other. Here again I will explain that all editors have an opinion so it is important to set those aside when editing. Opinions exist. Whether we use them to drive our editorial philosophies or not is the question. The next point is telling in this regard:

you have deemed that the consensus is that there is no connection between (self-identified or by ethnic divisions) race and intelligence and have suggested that my valuation that there is is part of scientific realism and is hence a fringe view. However, it seems like not only is the consensus (as per sources cited by Cherio222) that there is indeed such a connection, but that the view that this connection is explained at least in part by genetics is not even fringe. I hope that you understand my position and can see where I am coming from. You are definitely adopting or at best accommodating a fringe view here either wittingly or unwittingly. If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, I would say you have been hoodwinked by a typical rhetorical argument by editors (some of whom are undoubtably sockpuppets of banned users) who continue to plague the race and intelligence pages. You can and should read more about this in the archived arbitration cases about this subject linked at the top of relevant talkpages. As white supremacists have tried to dominate the conversation about "race and intelligence", they skew the subject in hopes of gaining editorial recruits like yourself. You've been duped. Just so you are aware, I very rarely involve myself in the ongoing disputes on those pages, but I will offer here that discussions of genetics and intelligence in today's political environment run headlong into a rhetorical history of white supremacy replete with very bad actors and propaganda tricks that, sadly, I think you may have bought hook, line, and sinker. You can get a sense for this by reading a book such as The Mismeasure of Man by the late, great Stephen J. Gould. So, yes, I judge that you have amalgamated fringe and mainstream sources into an intransigent editorial bent that intelligence is inherited and based on race -- which is scientific racism. If you keep going down this road to argue in favor of this position as "mainstream", you will find your going difficult. So this is a good object lesson, indeed.

jps (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Hmm... I'm not sure. You seem convinced that I am totally intransigent and have serious difficulties with admitting to being wrong about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that this is really what it all comes down to. You seem to have held this view ever since I first encountered you. Honestly, I am still not sure what made you think that; I guess a more concrete example may help here. What I find even more puzzling is that you state that I "think your analysis has a clarity that is unimpeachable". It may just be a case of misunderstanding, but haven't I already conceded that "my evaluation of sources" is just "an opinion" and that we're "all human and all bound to make errors"? Or do you mean that, even if I may say that I am bound to make errors, I don't actually admit to making any errors in reality and am not being genuine with myself? I think this option is more likely, but it would still be quite strange, given the number of occasions where I had admitted to being wrong, including in cases where you were involved (e.g. the indefinite article discussion, the format of my proposal, being defensive, etc). Either way, whatever it may be, if your primary issue with me is that you don't think that I'm ready to change my stance on a given topic, then the solution is simple: you give me a concrete example of where I am not willing to concede being wrong despite the evidence and I will see whether I agree or not. However, even if turns out that I was wrong, that in itself does not automatically imply that I'm bad at determining the scholarly consensus; it just means that I'm human and that I make mistakes. I think not overgeneralising in cases like these is important, because the alternative may end up sounding aggressive and pretentious, as you yourself once pointed out with a slightly different phrasing. I may have gotten defensive in our earlier convo, but an easy way to avoid people getting defensive is to have a more conservative approach yourself. You know, I've got things to learn, and you've got things to learn. I certainly need to stay calmer in certain situations, but you also need to be less judgemental and conceited in your approach, at least with me. And by that I don't mean that you're generally conceited or judgemental, but instead that you may have misjudged the situation on this particular occasion and that's why you come across in this way, at least to me. I'm not saying this out of spite, but I think that our collaboration will be a lot more meaningful if I stop being defensive and you stop overgeneralising, because I think that's the goal of our very conversation.

2) I don't think you understand what I'm saying here. Let me get right down to epistemology to make my point clearer: it is impossible to know anything unconditional about the physical world, or whether it even exists. Therefore, any statement that we make about the physical world is just our opinion. This includes our evaluation of scholarly consensus. If something is an "opinion", that does not mean that it is affected by some inherent bias or that it hasn't been constructed systematically - it just means that it's subjective. In this case, both of our valuations may be completely systematic and free of inherent bias, and yet both may end up on opposite extremes of the spectrum. Therefore, it is impossible for our editing philosophy not to be influenced by our opinions, simply because our editing philosophy IS an opinion, as is any other statement that we make about physical reality, if we are being really rigorous. In my opinion, your failure to realise this may be the main driver of your apparent conceitedness, if you aren't really conceited at all. A similar issue might actually be at play in my case, too: perhaps, I appear high-handed because of a fallacious aspect of my approach, even if that's not really the case whatsoever (I know what's going on inside my thoughts; it's not).

3) Hmmm again. I think I'm starting to see a pattern: you seem to overgeneralise a lot. It may actually be the case that our entire convo is a product of these two issues: my defensiveness and your tendency to overgeneralise. I think that, if we both tried to eliminate these two traits of ours, we'd get along perfectly well (although it may still be the case that there's another weakness in my approach that causes me to appear high-handed, which I've described above - but I won't know it until you point it out to me). In this case, consider that just the fact that some people may not share your opinions (yes, opinions, as explained above) on a given race-related subject does not mean that they are white supremacists. And, as to the rest of your comment, no, I haven't been duped: in fact, I didn't even know about the users in question until two days ago. Instead, I have based my opinions on reliable sources which I have evaluated by myself. NOTE: as I have stated many times before, and as you can actually find on my very user page, I do NOT hold the position that mainstream science agrees that intellectual differences between ethnicities are caused by genetics. Instead, my position is that these differences exist, and that mainstream science does not rule out the possibility of a genetic factor, as the lede currently states, and additionally that such a view is not on the fringe. Funnily enough, even the book that you have mentioned, The Mismeasure of Man, concedes that intellectual differences exist between ethnicities. It seems like my position is pretty much as unanimous as it gets in the scientific community. I'm not sure why you're trying to debate that, but I'll assume good faith and conclude that this was just a case of misunderstanding, because it would otherwise be a case of WP:COI and tendentiousness, which I refuse to believe about you. Either way, if you disagree, you should provide at least one reliable source which disagrees with this position. For all the disagreement that I've encountered from Wikipedia editors, not a single source has been provided that disputes the existence of ethnic intellectual differences; and at least 20 sources have been provided in the other direction.

4) Lastly, I will note that you have now started edit-warring without consensus on a contentious article. Especially given the nature of our discussion, I don't think that this was the wisest thing to do. I strongly suggest that you self-revert and bring the issue to the talk page if you don't want to start another massive feud on a contentious topic. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 20:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. You keep going down this road, misinterpreting me, ignoring the advice of people who have a lot more experience than you, and acting instead a general nuisance like you are currently doing, I predict not only will your topic ban not be lifted, it may even be extended. Good luck! jps (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've reacted in this way, it doesn't seem like you really tried. It seems like you're just being resentful at the first hint of a criticism on my part. I showed real desire to improve and make our collaboration more efficient, admitted my weaknesses, and overall tried to be as respectful to you as I could. And none of this warranted anything more than being called "a nuisance", according to you. Oh, well. But, you know what, now that this discussion is over, I just want to say: at the end of the day, both of us are probably a net positive for Wikipedia as a project, so regardless of what you may think of me or what I may think of you, we still have to respect each other as editors - and I don't even say that because I think that deserve any respect but because I think that we are working on the same team, the Wikipedia team, and it will just be worse for the project if we don't do that. So let's just move on from this conversation, appreciating the fact that different people have different opinions and different weaknesses, and get on with our common goal of, literally, making the world a better and more convenient place to live in, without any hard feelings. Good luck (I mean it)! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want to be site-banned? I know you probably said that on impulse due to feeling victimised, but I feel you have potential to contribute greatly. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your kind words. I also appreciate your effort to evaluate the situation, instead of just reading the first sentence and making a judgment out of that. To be honest, I was just making a silly joke. But if I do get site-banned, that will be the community's judgement. After all, Wikipedia is the community, and the community's judgement is what makes up all content on Wikipedia. So if it is ruled that I am to be site-banned, well, too bad, that's just how Wikipedia works. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 14:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attitude, but making silly jokes is often a bad idea. It can be difficult to determine whether something is a joke or serious, and sometimes people can take what you say a different way as you intended. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True this. I guess I just gave up at that moment. But you're right. I better be careful. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your topic ban appeal on

WP:SNOW? Does that mean that you think my initial proposal had no chance of being accepted? Interesting... ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More so that it became SNOW shortly after the initial appeal. Your appeal for an

WP:APPEAL for more about that approach). Consensus was on a clear trajectory, as you noted yourself. Moreover, your behavior in the discussion was not in your own best interest and, in my view, turned this into a SNOW case (i.e., there's no reason to further continue the bureaucracy when the outcome is readily apparent). In any case, I hope you continue to edit in the areas you have been. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, I see what you mean. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 00:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, 'ping' is generally used as shorthand for notifying someone via a talk page (or edit summary) mention mw:Help:Notifications/Types#Mentions. It does not matter whether and what template you use. So if someone asks you not to ping them, you should not wikilink their username in any replies, including using templates that do so nor wikilink their username in your edit summary, as that will normally cause a notification. While there are ways to avoid notifying someone from talk page mentions, such as not signing your post in your first edit, then signing it and doing nothing else in your next, there is also a template {{No ping}} which can be used. But you should also consider whether it's really needed to wikilink someone's name. For example, in this case [16] it seems fairly superfluous since Grayfell was already an active participant in that thread so there would be no doubt who you were referring to and likewise people could easily find a link to their user page if they needed one. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Will take it into account. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 20:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me like you just did on Talk:Race and intelligence. It is rude. jps (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment there. It is a subsection of the previous conversation. jps (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Oldstone_James reported by User:Grayfell (Result: ). Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid my grandstand was going to be completely in vain. At least the fact I am not alone is some sort of vindication. What a terrible way of working together... sucks all the fun out of Wikipedia :( --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. But things like this happen sometimes. I think what you need to do in situations such as this one, for your own benefit, is just move on to some other topic where your edits are likely to be accepted. Now, I have struggled to do this in the past, but I am confident that you will save both energy and time if you proceed with this course of action. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 00:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice, —PaleoNeonate – 04:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would have dropped it but the user started blatantly

hounding my other contributions. FYI I've mentioned your support for my previous report here [17]. This has to stop. It's unacceptable. Never seen anything like it and impunity will just reinforce it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that it does to have to stop, but it won't. I don't think jps will be sanctioned, because he is already pretty well-known on Wikipedia as an "experienced editor" (which practically means that he is [almost] sanction-proof) and is on good terms with a few admins (including Bishonen, who blocked you). It's a bit of an unfortunate block that you received there, as it seems like the blocking admin simply failed to read into the situation when they accused of you of forum-shopping, and, quite frankly, I don't see what purpose this block was trying to fulfil, but seeing as your editing has been labelled as "disruptive" by an admin, it's probably true that it's not ideal. I know that you can't always fix everything, but if you listen to what Bishonen has to say about your editing and try to improve it based on this feedback, I'm sure that you will have more support from other editors (I say this from personal experience). I guess that this is the only thing that you can do at this point. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 18:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. jps (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've gotta move on from R&I. I've proposed a topic ban for you here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Oldstone_James.

jps (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Oldstone James (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I haven't violated any bright-line rules such as WP:3RR or the WP:1RR restriction since it's been imposed (I've made 1 revert since it was imposed). Furthermore, each of the reverts that jps has linked were reverts of different edits and each respected

WP:BRD cycle, which I have for the most part done. Is this understanding false? Regards, James. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

One can be disruptively editing or edit warring without breaking a bright-line rule.

Talking about the editors in your appeal isn't recommended --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Oldstone James, I feel that it's time for you to take a break from the

That's fair, but why was my editing not appropriate? Besides, I think we've made a fair bit of progress over the past few days, together with users like Onetwothreeip and Dlthewave, so I think we were moving in the right direction. If I were completely honest, I'd say that I still don't completely understand the motive behind this block. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldstone James, the partial block result is how I concluded my evaluation of the AN3 report filed about you. El_C 20:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure this helps, but I understand that you're busy, so thank you for taking the time making at least the comments that you already have made. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 21:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)James, a word from the wise. To not get blocked in the first place, don't edit war. To get unblocked you have to grovel. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A word from the wise? Hmm, how humble of you (just kidding, I know you meant "to the wise"). Anyway, I don't think I was actually edit-warring, and I think you will agree if you take a look at the edits that I actually made. And, if you don't agree, please tell me in what way they constitute edit-warring, as I would very happy to learn about ways to improve my editing efficiency and reduce chances of getting in trouble in the future. As a side note, is this comment in light of your recent edit-warring block or in spite of it? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 21:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of my recent block, yes; and previous ones. I saw the AN3 report as evaluated above by El C. Grovelling works usually, but you have to really work at it. I don't think you've got it in you. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's great to hear. Hopefully, you won't edit-war like you have done in the future. As to your last sentence, isn't that kind of assuming bad faith? Of course I can grovel if such behaviour is actually beneficial to the community. However, if it is not, and I am forced to, say, stay away from talk page discussions (as have been advised in the past by a user named Nick Thorne), then, yeah, I'm not doing that. If that's what you meant then I agree with you. But, most likely, whatever advice I am given by admins is probably warranted, and I have no problem with (opposite, I am always happy to be) following actually helpful advice. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 21:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldstone James, you’ve repeatedly accused me of edit warring without providing a shred of evidence [18][19] and have doubled down on your accusations, again without providing any evidence, on two pages when I’ve challenged you on it [20][21]. In the future please refrain from such uncivil behavior towards your fellow editors, we are all here for the same purpose and are all deserving of respect.

@

WP:NOTHERE, for example. Lastly, whatever it is that I was blocked for, it probably isn't edit-warring - more likely reasons are tendentiousness and generally disruptive editing, but an admin is yet to clarify this for me. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 21:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Its interesting that you’re so sure my one edit on that page constitutes an edit war when at

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I do review your reverts as edit-warring because they violate

WP:DROPTHESTICK. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

BRD is neither policy or guideline and is entirely optional, it can be ignored but it can't really be violated. Your block is unrelated to our discussion which is about your characterization of other user’s edits as edit warring (I am far from the only one you have made spurious claims against) not your own edit warring. Please review

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It isn't a policy, but if you don't violate BRD, then in most cases I don't see how it can possibly be claimed that you are edit-warring. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes an edit war beyond the bright line of 3RR is explained at

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Oldstone James (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe my last unblock request was misunderstood. My central argument was NOT that I hadn't violated any bright-line rule or that others behaved in a similar way to mine - those were additional things that I felt were worth mentioning; my argument is that my editing wasn't disruptive. I received my block after a report on WP:AN3, which I presume means that I was blocked for edit-warring. However, all of the edits presented in the report abided by

WP:BRD bar one, which re-reverted an obvious case of misunderstanding (the original revert's edit summary read content was inadvertantly restored to the article", although the content was in fact added intentionally). I understand that even reverts which follow BRD can also be disruptive; however, in this case, we have made clear progress on the article, and I have publicly thanked user:onetwothreeip, the user whose edits I frequently reverted and with whose general position I disagree, for their recent edits (which reflects the progress that we have made); additionally, I greatly appreciated user:Dlthewave's change of attitude (Dlthewave is another user whose reverts are mentioned in the report), as they started discussing the reverted changes one-by-one instead of reinstating them, and I think I mentioned this appreciation somewhere, although I can't recall where. All in all, I don't see what purpose this block serves, as I and other editors were on a path of improving the article rather than in a position of stalemate or tug-of-war, and I wasn't actually involved in edit-warring, for which I presumably received my block. Please tell me if my reasoning is flawed, as you would be very happy to take in feedback as to how my editing can be improved. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

Moot per below Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I have blocked you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing within the area of Race and Intelligence. The first year is as a arbitration enforcement block. The rest is as a standard admin block --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Oldstone James (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the

WP:BRD, which I have been extensively recommended by experienced editors and admins. :Furthermore, in addition to my editing not being part of an edit war, I and 2 of the editors with whom I had disagreed and both of whom are mentioned in the AN3 report (user:Onetwothreeip and user:Dlthewave have managed to make progress in the article after the edits mentioned in the report took place: I had sent public thanks to onetwothreeip for two of their edits (this one and this one), and I eventually myself resorted to a version that Dlthewave previously reinstated, only adding some punctuation to top it off ([32]). :In light of the two explanations offered above, I don't believe that I was edit-warring on the article Race and intelligence, but that I had instead abided by BRD and made progress as a consequence of my and other users' editing. :My editing in the past year: The ultimate reason for my indefinite site-ban was the fact that I was frequently sanctioned in the past. Indeed, in my early Wikipedia days, when I didn't know how Wikipedia worked, my editing was often disruptive, and my behaviour was often unacceptable. My early edits were 100% and more deserved, but none of them were in vain: I had learnt from every block and, as the years went by, I learnt new editing strategies and gained a better understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. The ultimate "hot kettle" moment for me was my topic ban on creationism spring last year: from then on, I had realised that: :*I need to be extra-careful with my edits - especially on contentious topics :*That edit-warring, however insignificant, almost always had bad consequences, not only for myself but for the progress of the article in general :*That whenever there is a content dispute, I should always head to the talk page first, and that following BRD is also a good idea... :...among other things. Since then, and until the recent heat surrounding the race and intelligence article, I had edited constructively for around 9 months, without anyone having any issues with my editing and without violating WP:BRD even once. I made large edits such as this one and also smaller ones multiple times a week. It was only during the past week or two, when my editing was focused on improving the article on race and intelligence, that the first criticisms of my editing started to pop up; understandably, it is a highly contentious topic, so it is not surprising that accusations of POV pushing were directed my way. However, I believe that I was still on the whole editing constructively. But then, all of a sudden, I am block for edit-warring and soon after indef-blocked. :Once again, the premise behind this indef-block is that I had learnt nothing from my previous blocks and sanctions. However, that is certainly not the case, and I'm a different editor now than I was previously. I've been editing constructively for a whole year, and now is the first time that someone's had an issue with my editing. I believe that I have changed as an editor since my sanction last year, and the fact that I encountered no problems editing during the past year reflects that. :Final comment: Finally, I would just like to mention that, even if you don't find all of my arguments convincing, consider the fact that all of the problems that I have encountered since 2015 have been in contentious areas. Outside contentious areas, I have been editing constructively and helped improve a great number of articles. If nothing else, I can be a helpful WP:WikiGnome and improve punctuation and grammar; without me, many articles will be left poorly punctuated or read badly, and my unblock will certainly be a net positive in at least this respect. All in all, even if you aren't convinced by my previous two sections, please consider the option of unblocking with a broadly construed ban on contentious topics. Although, personally, I don't believe that such a ban is warranted, for the reasons described in the above two sections. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 03:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Accept reason:

Consensus at Arbitration enforcement -- RexxS (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts don't need to be the same for there to be

3RR violation (i.e. "whether involving the same or different material"). In addition to the report I closed, there was also the AN3 report from two days before, which seemed to have slipped through the cracks. El_C 03:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@El C: So it is possible for me to follow WP:BRD AND edit-war at the same time? If so, how do I know which reverts are allowed and encouraged and which constitute edit-warring? You recently commented that harmful edits need to be reverted; but how do I know what is harmful and what is not? In my opinion, all the edits that I reverted were harmful, given that none of them had consensus and each introduced its own issues, such as grammatical and punctuational issues, removal of sourced content, etc.

Also, the report that was made two days prior focused on edits that weren't even reverts. Of the diffs provided, only one was an actual revert; all the other edits were compromise edits, which are advised by WP:BRD, and which had helped me massively in the past to avoid unnecessary content disputes by resolving the issue in-situ. Are compromise edits not recommended on contentious areas?

Finally, my editing strategy throughout the entirety of last year was "follow BRD and use common sense, and you're good". Evidently, it didn't work. But this is really easily fixed: tell me what I need to do instead, and the issue is solved. I don't think an indef block - in fact, any block or sanction - is necessary in this case. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 03:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about your indefinite block as I have not read that AE report closely. Examples of what is considered harmful edits (which are exempted from 3RR) are listed at

WP:3RRNO. BRD is not binding and, again, reverting and edit warring are one and the same. El_C 03:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:3RRNO, reverting this edit constitutes edit-warring and is a punishable offence. Does that mean that I can potentially get blocked for, say, reverting an unexplained removal of sourced content or, alternatively, a desperate POV push, and that such behaviour is disruptive? Another question is: if not BRD, then what strategy should I follow to make sure my editing isn't disruptive? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 04:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oldstone, I think that you may have a slight misunderstanding of consensus and reversion. Unless special restrictions are in place, you don't need prior consensus to edit an article, and "doesn't have consensus" isn't a valid reason to revert in and of itself. You certainly don't get to violate 3RR just because somebody made a change without discussing it first. Factors such as removal of sourced content (all removals that I'm aware of had some explanation) or what you describe as POV pushing don't change that. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:3RRNO

. However, if you take a look at my edits, you will see that I did neither of those things: I didn't violate 3RR, and I didn't revert your edits just because they didn't have consensus (my edsum actually described the true reasons). My plea not to delete massive amounts of an article without consensus was just that - a plea - and I didn't expect you to follow it if you disagreed. As I had explained earlier, the reason that I wasn't happy with your edits is that you reinstated the same edits that you had previously made, in addition to disregarding my plea (which you were free to do). But we eventually managed to reach an improved version of the article with our collaborative efforts, and you actually started engaging in discussion after each reverted edit, so I have no hard feelings about your editing in the end (quite the opposite).

As an aside, mentions of POV pushing and removal of sourced contents are just random examples of obviously bad edits that first came to mind. I don't actually think any of the edits that I reverted were clear examples of POV pushing. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 04:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated unexplained removal of sourced content may be viewed as vandalism. I'm not sure what "desperate POV push" is — that is a bit vague. It is advisable to follow BRD, you just can't use it a shield when reverting edits that stray from it. El_C 04:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: But what if my only edit on Wikipedia is the revert of a singular, good-faith removal of sourced content which obviously undermines the article's quality: am I edit-warring? By "desperate POV push", I mean something like The Earth has been scientifically proven to be flat, although a movement of people with a noted lack of critical thinking, pejoratively known as "globetards", disagree with these findings. If I revert such an edit, which let's say is obviously good-faith, then am I edit-warring? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 04:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if sourced content is removed without an explanation, it can be reverted as a test (singularly) or vandalism (repeatedly) — {{uw-delete2}} is what I usually go with in those instances. Obviously fringe content like the example cited above can be reverted on-sight as a fabrication — {{uw-error2}} is what I usually go with in those instances. El_C 04:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I have no opinion about Oldstone James' block, but can there please be a resolution to the issue I raised concerning ජපස's behavior? The AE report was closed before any other admins besides you could comment on that issue. It was especially jarring to see Black Kite raise Oldstone James' block log as a reason for him to be blocked, while ජපස's block log is the first time I have ever seen a block log so long that it can't fit on one page.

There are some ongoing issues surrounding ජපස's behavior that go beyond what I mentioned at AE. Not long ago a user who had been inactive for the past nine months, ArtifexMayhem, suddenly showed up to support a proposal by ජපස on the race and intelligence article. [33] Supporting ජපස's proposal is the only thing that user has done at Wikipedia since May of last year. This occurrence stood out to me because in a different context, it was recently mentioned that when "an inactive account has suddenly popped up just to make a response", that is an indication of off-wiki canvassing.

As an unregistered user, I can't create a new arbitration enforcement report, so raising this issue with you here is my only option for trying to get it addressed. It will be applying an obvious double standard if Oldstone James is given an indefinite block, while ජපස gets a pass. 2600:1004:B151:B3ED:893D:9625:A702:1D77 (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IP, I'm already spread a bit thin — I simply can't spare the time to devote to such an investigation. El_C 06:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Are there any other admins looking at this page who could possibly look into it? 2600:1004:B151:B3ED:893D:9625:A702:1D77 (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making sure this request isn't ignored like last time

@El C: @Black Kite: @Guerillero: How do I make sure this unblock request isn't simply ignored like last time? What actions shall I take for someone to post this on a relevant noticeboard and for this request to be considered? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of posting a wall of text about how you didn't do anything wrong, how you did not edit war and that all your infractions have "only" been in contentious areas, you need to own your own behaviour, show some self awareness and recognise that it is your actions that have brought you to this impass. Given that this is not the first time you have been blocked for this sort of behaviour, how can an unblocking admin be in any way convinced that you wont simply go back to your same old ways? You have said before that you will not do it again, yet here we are. Why should anyone believe you this time? - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great question. I have, in fact, owned my behaviour and admitted that I'd been wrong in the past. Before Spring of last year, my editing was indeed disruptive, and my blocks were deserved. I mention all of that in my unblock request.

As to how they can be convinced that I won't go back my old ways, simple: I haven't done so in an entire year, so why would I go back now? Even if my most recent block was deserved, it is clear that I had changed from the time of my last sanction, as I didn't use to follow at least BRD until then, and I do so now (and have done so for the past 10 months, with almost no exceptions); so, yes, I said that I wouldn't violate BRD, and hadn't done so since (once again, with very few exceptions). I honestly just wasn't told or aware that I wasn't allowed to revert edits at all (except for when these edits are uncontroversially harmful), and kind of assumed I was given that most editors make loads of reverts, but now that I know that I'm not, I won't revert in the future without an uncontroversial reason. There's plenty of evidence that I had learnt from my past mistakes, which includes learning to follow BRD, so I think, assuming good faith, I should be given the benefit of the doubt one last chance here. And if there is any doubt whatsoever, the solution is simple: an admin can simply block me any time at their own convenience. Doesn't sound like that bad of a deal to me? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldstone James, yeah, pretty much. Too lengthy and not introspective enough. Anyway, I suggest you redraft the unblock appeal. Also suggest you follow

AE, specifically. Good luck. El_C 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, will do. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Even when blocked this user is wasting a lot of people's time. The user will still have UTRS as a unblock request venue. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the, to me, surprising remarks from Guy M below, I would like to see how that discussion develops, and would not support such a proposal atm. I will not be taking part in said discussion. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please post on

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see

Appealing user

Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Year-long block (and subsequent indefinite admin block), imposed at

WP:AE#Oldstone_James, logged at [34]

.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a

diff

of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Oldstone James

The main reason for my indefinite block is my editing at the article Race and intelligence, as per this statement by the blocking administrator. The specific reason why my editing was disruptive is edit-warring, as per the block summary by El_C.

Indeed, it has been explained to me by El C that my editing was unacceptable: reverting - whether following

WP:EW

- especially at such a contentious article as Race and Intelligence; I had indeed made several reverts at the article, and so was duly blocked from editing for a week.

However, although I now realise that my editing was disruptive, I did not know that at the time of editing: my last sanction was a creationism topic ban imposed 10 months ago, after which several experienced editors, the most vocal of which I recall as being

WP:3RRNO

are considered acts of edit-warring, and was instead specifically advised to follow the BRD-cycle, so my consequent edit-warring was an example of my genuine misunderstanding and confusion rather than a disregard for the rules or a general disruptive tendency.

Speaking of a lack of disruptive tendency, I had been editing constructively for 10 months without encountering any problems whatsoever; the only occasion on which my editing was found to be problematic was the one that led to the indefinite block, which was a result of my misunderstanding of the rules. Now, I had received earlier blocks than the one that eventually led to my topic ban 10 months ago, but I was just figuring out how Wikipedia works, with my lack of experience as well as persistence getting me in trouble. I am a totally different editor now, which is reflected by the fact that, despite editing many times a week consistently throughout the past year, I didn't encounter any problems up until now. My last topic ban taught me a lot of things, such as that I should never assume consensus by myself, that I should take to the talk page instead of re-reverting regardless of whether the edit that I don't agree with was part of an edit war or was made without or against consensus, and that a respectful and civil attitude is a key determinant of the community's views on my editing even if the editing itself isn't problematic (that's not to say that the editing that led to my topic ban wasn't problematic).

In light of all of the above, my proposition is simple: given that I have proven that I can learn from my mistakes and edit constructively, I believe that it is reasonable to give me one last chance and a fragile benefit of the doubt (

WP:ROPE), by which I mean allow me to edit but block me indefinitely at the first shadow of a doubt. This will guarantee that my unblock is a net positive for Wikipedia: I will certainly improve many articles, by wikignoming, i.e. fixing punctuational and grammatical errors, if by no other means, and if I somehow disrupt Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form, it will only take a simple user complaint and/or admin click to get me off Wikipedia entirely. Surely, this can't be too bad for the project? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Guerillero: (Reply to comment at WP:AE) I just want to give a quick overview of the situation at R&I: there currently seem to be two camps; one camp accuses the other of censorship, science denialism and POV pushing, and the other camp accuses the other party of racism, promotion of pseudoscience, and POV pushing. The two camps are roughly equal in numbers, with a slight numerical majority of editors being on the former camp (which I am on). You can get a very nice overview of the opinions and size of these two groups of editors here or, perhaps less clearly, here. Either way, it is far from unanimous that my editing constituted POV pushing. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

I have had previous disputes with Oldstone James, and am quite familiar with the circumstances that led up to the block. In my considered opinion all sanctions should be lifted. I think that we are going to look back a year from now and be glad that we did. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Oldstone James

Result of the appeal by Oldstone James

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Posted

 Posted. El_C 02:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks a lot! Can you add Guy Macon's comment as well? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 02:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 02:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(This is just me talking to you, not an official response to the block appeal).

I just went back and reviewed all of our prior interactions. I am reminded of myself back when I first started editing Wikipedia -- except my behavior was far, far worse. I really do think that if you are unblocked I am going to end up being glad I vouched for you. As you yourself mentioned in your appeal, you would have to be a total idiot to ask for an unblock and immediately behave in such a way as to get blocked again. I do not believe that you are stupid.

It looks like you are heading for an unblock. If that happens, I would like to invite you to come to my talk page and discuss any problems you might run into while editing Wikipedia, and to ask if you would mind an occasional "I am having trouble with this page. Is it something you might be interested in working on?" message from me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to understate how much I appreciate your attitude. I honestly thought that you were just being vengeful and wouldn't change your mind about me no matter what, but I now see that I was either wrong or you have changed for the better since then, or probably both. Needless to say, it takes quite a lot of good intention to support the unblock of someone who has wasted so much of your time and gave you as much shit as I did. It's now clear to me that your pledge to return to old-fashioned Wikipedian values was a genuine attempt to improve yourself as an editor, something which I once doubted; I thought you simply ignored me when I expressed these doubts, but you obviously listened to what I had to say, even if you didn't agree with it - if you didn't, you wouldn't be here arguing for my unblock.

Thanks a lot for this offer! It would be really helpful if I could pop in at your talk page just to make sure that I understand the policies correctly; if I had this option earlier, I'm sure I would've avoided a lot of trouble, including this indef-block for sure.

And of course I wouldn't mind this type of messages at all! I am always happy to solve issues when they arise; after all, that's what I am here on Wikipedia for: to make sure the project is as polished and as accurate as possible.

Finally, I know it may already be clear from my unblock request, but I just wanted to say that I didn't at first realise how much of what you were saying a year ago was actually true; BRD alone saved me a couple of hours' worth of editing time at least. I now know that I should take extreme care when applying this process, but as long as I do, it is of massive help. But it's not just BRD: there were several occasions throughout the past year when an unpleasant situation arose and I thought to myself, "hold on, didn't this Guy Macon guy describe a solution to situations like these last year?", then applied the solution, and it worked almost every time. To be honest with you, I still don't agree with some of the things that you'd said and done a year ago, but the more time passed, the more I realised how much of what you were saying wasn't just a quest to patronise me or appear righteous (which is what I thought at the time) and was instead a genuine attempt to help. To this end, I'd like to thank you (and some other editors, actually, including even jps, with whom I still have a few issues) for putting me on the right path and just generally making editing on Wikipedia easier. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 23:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus at AE that your block should be replaced by a topic ban from the areas covered by

I have therefore unblocked you, and I will add formal notice of the topic bans below. The topic bans will be for one year, and I strongly recommend that you edit in areas wholly unrelated, and ensure that you don't skate the borders of what is allowed. A good rule-of-thumb is that if you're unsure whether a particular subject falls under these topic bans, then it probably does. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good tidings, OldstoneJames. But I hope you're aware that your ban extends to the topic area of Creationism, also. El_C 21:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldstone James, you might want to reconsider whether this comment is a good idea: [35] Do you know whether topic bans extend to arbitration pages such as

I advise Oldstone James to not respond to the above or any other comments having to do with the topic ban. In fact, the best way forward is to simply drop the entire subject and move on to other things. One welcome exception would be a post here on the talk page indicating "I understand the restrictions" and possibly thanking those of us who vouched for OJ and called for a lifting of the block. The best way to stop discussing something is to stop discussing it. :) (edited for clarity) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a closing comment on their own ANI thread, its a comment on a completely different report.

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah. Missed that. Not good at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from editing or commenting on anything related to the subject of 'race & intelligence', broadly construed, for a period of 12 months.

You have been sanctioned following consensus at Arbitration enforcement

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. RexxS (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from editing or commenting on anything related to the subject of 'pseudoscience', broadly construed, for a period of 12 months.

You have been sanctioned following consensus at Arbitration enforcement

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. RexxS (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Oldstone James. Your post here (at 22:47 on 1 March) regarding a complaint about Peregrine Fisher seems to violate your recently-imposed topic ban from the area of Race and Intelligence. There may still be time for you to undo or strike out your post. If you don't think your ban relates to this, you might ask User:RexxS who entered your R&I ban in the log at 21:21 on 1 March. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thanks a lot for this message! The thought that if I'd gone to bed half an hour later than I did I'd still be unblocked makes me pretty frustrated. It was stupid of me not to consider that this edit violated the topic ban. But no complaints now, I guess. Guess I'll have to wait for 6 whole friggen months to be able to edit again because of this stupid mistake. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 08:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldstone James, in your recent edit [36] you repeated your edit warring accusation against me which we discussed earlier. Unless supported by diffs your comments amount to

OJ: What the hell? You went to an AE case that clearly says "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary_sanctions" at the top and added a statement? Please don't make me sorry that I vouched for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you stay completely away for anything even close to the topics you are banned from. Don't be that person who keeps standing standing with with his toes over the line he is not allowed to cross, and in general behave in such a way that if anyone reports you at EA or ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a

Good block. I feel like a fool for standing up for you and advising an unblock. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I feel like a total idiot. Crap. This was very stupid of me. I have no idea how I thought this wouldn't violate the topic ban. Well, I have no excuses now. This is incredibly stupid, but oh well. I can't believe all my efforts into getting unblocked are now nullified by this one stupid mistake. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 08:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do I wait 6 months now for my next unblock request, or what's your advice? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 08:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I created an alternate account recently, and I've read more about what is considered a legitime and an illegitimate reason for creating alternate accounts, and apparently making a clean start while under a restriction, even if you have no intent of violating it, isn't considered legitimate (which makes perfect sense, now that I think about it). Looks like I am simply struggling with what is allowed and what is not and would probably have gotten caught in this trap sooner or later even if I wasn't blocked again. I now think that an indef block was unavoidable. Wikipedia just isn't for me, I guess. Sorry for wasting your time on this issue and misleading you to believe that I don't deserve a block, because now even I'm starting to think I do. That said, thanks a lot for all the trust you've put in me and all the effort you've put in to help me. In my opinion, you shouldn't feel like an idiot but instead as someone who tried to do right thing but just didn't happen to be successful on this occasion; in reality, I am convinced that, if you try to do the right thing every time, in the majority of instances that will pay off, so please don't let this case mislead you. In this regard, I fully and wholeheartedly concur with user:Schazjmd's comments on your talk page. Please keep this attitude up (I say that as a human being if not as a Wikipedia editor). ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 08:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really did end up being as mentioned, a lot of trouble for naught. While I believe that the ban was contravened unwittingly, Oldstone James, you are still responsible for anything your user account does. I appreciate the introspection, however. El_C 09:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Of course, I don't debate that. It's stupid and unnecessary but not certainly not undeserved. If anything, I agree with the block, as I mentioned above. I still believe that I would improve Wikipedia if I was given the right to edit, but there are rules that you have to follow and stick to; otherwise, the project will break down. And right after being unblocked, I have violated two policies at once, it seems. I have no excuses. I'll just have to deal with the block, as much as I hate it, and find a way to not get annoyed at seeing grammatical mistakes in articles and my inability to fix them.

By the way, is there really any point in appealing my indef block again at some time in the future (like in 6 or 12 months), or is it all over? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 09:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Oldstone James, it would be worthwhile to pursue an appeal at some time in the future, in my view. El_C 09:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is really refreshing to hear. See you in 6 months, then, hopefully? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 09:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Please ping upon request. El_C 09:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 09:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breach of your AE topic ban on R&I on the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

RexxS (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

All that for naught. El_C 00:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators:

IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

El_C, RexxS, Guy Macon, and others who have put time and effort into getting me unblocked: please don't feel like you've wasted your time on me. It may seem like all of this was, as El C puts it, for naught, but it's honestly not: if I hadn't been unblocked in the first place, I would most likely still be convinced that I was blocked unfairly and that Wikipedia is a hopelessly toxic community; every time that I would see an article that I could improve, my frustration would probably be doubled by the knowledge that I would've been able to improve it if it wasn't for the "toxicity" of the project. Needless to say, I won't feel this way now. While you guys may not have gotten me unblocked in the end, you have helped me realise that my block is ultimately deserved, which is good for both myself and the project, as I will have learnt all the right lessons (e.g. that the underlying problem that has gotten me into pretty much all the trouble that I have gotten into on Wikipedia is my horrible lack of attentiveness and understanding of policies) if and when I hopefully come back, making my editing on Wikipedia more productive.

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in as I saw a couple of messages where you have expressed disappointment in your actions, but I just don't think you should feel this way - not only because I personally don't think one should ever be disappointed if they were doing the right thing, but also because your efforts weren't "for naught", either. And, of course, it goes without saying that I greatly appreciate your help and good intent. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on what's been said, read

WP:SO only begins where your socking ends and further socking may result in no standard offer at all. It might have been an honest mistake, but that's irrelevant when it comes to violating conduct policies. Best of luck and I hope you enjoy your time outside of Wikipedia. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the input, I have in fact taken a look at WP:SOCK a couple of hours ago and raised that my other account would fall under the category of a sockpuppet. Thank you for your words. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 11:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I have deliberatly kept away from most of the discussion surrounding this, but I do think you owe Wikipedia for all the

WP:ROPE we wasted on you. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I applaud that you wouldn't let your personal feelings get in the way of an objective decision. Well, I wouldn't say wasted, as I've already described, but indeed I am grateful. I think there were moments where I deserved some WP:ROPE but was not given it, but this is clearly not one of those moments. I owe Wikipedia because it is my duty to improve it. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 12:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it. You wrote a lot of sincere-sounding words about following my advice next time and appeared to accept my offer to help you and discuss potentially troublesome edits on my talk page before you made the edits. So did you ask me (you could have asked by email) if I thought that editing as NaìuviaAeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a good idea? You did not. Did you ask me whether it was a good idea to comment on an editor at AE who is involved in the Race and intelligence topic that you were topic banned from? You did not. And now I see you writing more nice sincere-sounding words. Sorry, but I cannot hear your words. Your actions are too deafening.

I am unwatching this page now. I have zero interest in anything you have to say. I vouched for you. does that mean nothing to you?

If he ever appeals again, would someone please ping me? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can't blame you for your attitude. I have disappointed everyone, I know. That actually feels much worse than even the fact that I got indeffed. I don't expect you to change your mind about me, to trust me, or to support my unblock in the future (I'd totally understand if you'd voted to keep me indeffed forever). I just genuinely wanted to let you know that your own efforts weren't for nothing, that's all.

Take what I've written as you like. My comment was not about me - it was about the editors who have put their trust in me and who I have disappointed, which includes you. Regardless of what you think about me, I just wanted to put it out there that your approach is appreciated, and that your efforts didn't amount to nothing. That's literally it. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: at least three other editors agree with me on this (Schazjmd, El_C, and Roxy the dog). If you don't want to trust me, trust them. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hold no animosity towards you, despite our past conflicts, but I wanted to make sure that you didn't lose in the noise what I recommended in your AE appeal and what I continue to think would be good medicine for your current predicament (and perhaps may be the only way forward). Work on related Wikimedia projects: Wikisource, Wikicommons, Simple.en, Wikibooks, etc. Invest your energy that you want to invest in Wikipedia on those projects. Demonstrate that you can collaborate, wikignome, etc. Don't sock, don't complain, don't argue, and come back in six months to appeal under standard offer. If you have considerable evidence that you can function in similar sorts of communities without issue, you will find your appeal succeeds.

jps (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Might as well start looking up things in Russian or French insteadof English now, because that's the only way I can see myself switching to a different Wikiproject. Not sure if even this will help, though, given that I've already been given a chance to redeem myself, and I fucked it up in less than a day on two independent occasions at once. And this will happen again, of course, because I'm really bad at understanding policies perfectly - whenever I feel like I've got gist of a policy, there will always be a nuance that I hadn't considered. I don't even know what to do about this - I can't ask for advice regarding every action that I take here on Wikipedia, after all. I think I will get on just fine if editors call me out on something before imposing taking action against me, but I don't know how to convince the community of this. From the community's point of view, I've already been given a fair few chances which I didn't manage to take.

It seems like you came here with good intent, so I will ask you with good intent: do you have any advice for me on this issue, having been in a similar situation yourself, I believe? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldstone James, have you thought about Simple English Wikipedia? I don't know how good your language skills are -personally, I can read French, but I've never felt confident enough about my grammar to trust myself to write content in French. Simple English, however, is perhaps something to try your hand at. Writing about complex topics in language that is easily accessible is a real skill, and something which could be useful in any contributions you might make here in the future - it might be a useful learning experience, as well as a way to demonstrate collaborative tendencies that people will be looking for in future. Just a thought anyway - do with it what you will, and best wishes. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, but the problem with that is that my editing pattern goes something like this: "waste time on the internet -> look up a Wikipedia article pertinent to the topic that I'm wasting my time on -> correct the article if there are any mistakes". Therefore, I can easily hop on to the French or Russian Wikipedia if I do my research in either of these languages, but I can't do my research in "simple English". To be honest with you, I wouldn't be 100% confident with my French grammar if I had to write out a long sentence, but I mostly make small edits here on English Wikipedia, anyway, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem. On the other hand, my knowledge of Russian is pretty much native.

But I'll take what you've said into account. Editing at Simple Wikipedia may even help me with my uni degree, part of which involves writing essays that focus on clarity and concision. So I may edit there from time to time as well. Thanks for your feedback. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any advice for me on this issue, having been in a similar situation yourself, I believe? I'm really serious about other projects, this is exactly what I did when blocked once and it worked out very well. I understand that this is out of your wheelhouse in terms of how you ended up at Wikipedia, but I'm telling you that commons, wikisource, simple are all fantastic options. You can do research at all of them too (just start at those pages instead of Google). Do some work at other projects and collaborate. Building up skills on those sites will transfer, I promise. jps (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and other languages are fine too! jps (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess I'll just do what you have suggested and hope for the best. Thanks! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 12:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: There was a content dispute that popped up on my watchlist which I believe I can help resolve. Am I allowed to address one of the users involved here regarding the issue? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 22:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may not. Usage of this talk page is to be limited to appeals only. El_C 22:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 23:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that I am not allowed to interact with users here on Wikipedia, but Iroh doesn't seem to have an email account linked to their Wikipedia user page, so there doesn't appear to be a way that I can contact them outside of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the message is unrelated to any Wikipedia article or topic, so I hope this message isn't too much of a big deal?

Hey, Iroh! I recently received a notification upon having been tagged by jps in a comment that suspected your user page might be one of my sockpuppet accounts, in response to which you have expressed the sentiment that my grammar wasn't always up to scratch. I have always been curious as to how I come across to other people - particularly, and especially having experienced a recent surge of interest in linguistics, in how my language is perceived. Would you care to elaborate on what aspects of my grammar are lacking and perhaps provide some illustrative examples? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 20:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due your your continual socking and your use of your talk page for something other than appealing your block, I have removed your ability to edit your talk page. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014–15 Super League Greece table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]