User talk:2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751

Unwelcome on Wikipedia

Your pointy, threatening, and far too personalised comments on Talk:Intelligence and How to Get It are unwelcome on Wikipedia. I've removed them;: don't put them back. What's your account, please? Bishonen | tålk 17:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC).

June 2024

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Here's the diff: [1]. Please take it to an appropriate noticeboard like WP:FTN if you'd like to solicit wider involvement from the community. Generalrelative (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually was about to self-revert that comment, because after posting it I decided it was best to not involve other people just yet. But you removed my comment so fast that I didn't have the chance. Also, posting in one person's user talk is not excessive cross-posting or vote-stacking. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No but it was clearly "selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you."

I also want to say: I'm happy to work constructively with you despite our having butted heads in the past. This initial revert today was helpful, for instance, and encouraged me to examine the sourcing of the article more broadly. But please understand, the race and intelligence topic area has been subjected to longstanding disruption from a few committed bad actors pushing a narrative of racial superiority, often through numerous sockpuppets. If I'm curt sometimes it's because dealing with this topic is an annoying job, like taking out the trash, and I prefer to do it as efficiently as possible. But it's a job that's got to be done, for the sake of the project. I encourage you to read the RfC here to get a better sense of why we as a community came to the conclusion we did about the fringe nature of racial hereditarianism. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You were warned above by Bishonen about pointy editing and personalized commentary, yet your recent post at FTN was highly personalized and a clear admission of editing to make a point: [2]. Please refrain from this behavior in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I asked you in my edit summary here [3] to stop posting on my user talk page, but you've ignored that request. I'll ask you again: please stop. At present more than half of the revisions to my user talk page are from you. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors as you did here. You're undermining your own arguments, which I've actually agreed with so far. If you have credible evidence for block evasion, you should present it at WP:SPI. This should be considered a level 2 warning, at least. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Are unregistered users able to make SPI reports? I thought having an account is required to do that. If you're offering to make one yourself, I could describe the evidence to you here in my user talk. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a requirement. I suggest you file a case yourself. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that's a good idea, even if it is technically possible for an unregistered user. I have an understanding of what's socially acceptable for users at different experience levels, and for me to open a sockpuppet investigation would not be seen as an acceptable action.

My understanding is based on what happened the previous time a semi-inexperienced user tried to open a SPI about this particular sockpuppeteer. When that happened, the suspected sockpuppet requested the participation of two users that he knew to be friendly, including one that's an administrator. [4] Both of those users then commented in the SPI supporting him, including the solicited admin commenting in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section. This led to the SPI being closed with no action. A few months later, that failed SPI was given as part of the reason for indefinitely blocking the user who opened it.

I have to avoid that other user's mistakes, so I can't open a sockpuppet investigation. But I also want other users to be aware that I know who the 51.6.193.169 IP is, in case someone else would consider opening one, which is why I mentioned it on the article talk page. I don't think I had any other reasonable options. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry anywhere outside of SPI counts as a personal attack, and you've again repeated these accusations in your last reply. If the sockpuppeteer canvassed an administrator, and that administrator responded, that's an issue that could have been raised elsewhere. Blocks can be appealed. You can't have it both ways: either file a case at SPI or cease any and all personal attacks against this editor. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you aren't aware of the unusual way things work in the race and intelligence topic area. I've followed the media coverage of these issues for the past two years, and the actions you've described aren't actually possible. Someone like me has the technical ability to request them, but our attempts will tend to be shut down quickly, and will likely result in negative consequences for us as WP:BOOMERANG. The frequency that this happens sometimes is pointed out as a way of discouraging such requests. Every new editor who comes into the topic area without understanding this gets blocked or topic banned before long.

There are some older discussions such as [5] where many users agreed that issues like these cannot be resolved at noticeboards, and I also can provide specific recent examples of the pattern.

Please try to understand this. You're clearly a reasonable person and I think we can work together, but I'm constrained by these unwritten rules just as much as I am by regular Wikipedia policies. I'd like to do the right thing in these situations, and I'd like you to understand how difficult that is. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Throast: Just to point out I am not the person/user I am falsely accused of being above (unsurprisingly with not a shred of evidence). I also had a look at the sockpuppet archive linked above and the geolocation does not even closely match the city I am in to any IP on that archive. I can only presume 2A02 made up these claims of sockpuppetry because an admin described their edit(s) as "absolute nonsense" and restored my edits to the Helmuth Nyborg article. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the race and intelligence topic area being controversial really make it not possible to file an SPI case? As someone who's set up a few in the past, this is not hard to do if you have strong, clear evidence of sockpuppetry. From what I've seen it's not the topic that matters, but the patterns of edits that prove someone is sockpuppeting. Just openly accusing someone in your edit reason without actual evidence is not the right move to make. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Harryhenry1: It is less about the topic area being controversial, and more about the fact that supporting a certain side of that dispute is regarded as inherently disruptive, even if there is no actual disruptive behavior such as edit warring. This was given as the reason for topic banning Publius Obsequium, and earlier for indefinitely blocking AndewNguyen. This also is the reason that if any discussion at a noticeboard is interpreted as challenging to the current consensus, the discussion tends to be quickly shut down or prevented from coming to a conclusion. If you aren't familiar with this dynamic, please read this discussion, which explains it.

Since you and others are complaining that I haven't presented any evidence, I'll mention one thing. The 51.6.193.169 IP claimed here [6] that he is a journalist working for The Guardian, and also said [7] that I was "falsely accusing (him) of being a RationalWiki editor". Pretending to be a journalist for a UK newspaper is something that Anglo Pyramidologist previously did from his London Student Journalist account. Meanwhile, just yesterday an article about Helmuth Nyborg was created at RationalWiki which includes most of the same contents that the other IP recently added to his Wikipedia article. Apparently we're supposed to believe it is a total coincidence that this content was added at both Wikipedia and RationalWiki at almost the same time.

There is more than this and I could keep going, but is there any point? I cannot open a sockpuppet investigation, so the only reason to go into these details is if you or Throast is thinking of opening one. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If this conspiracy is true, do you really think using other editors as your middleman at SPI will prevent you from being blocked? I won't file a case for you and neither should Harryhenry1. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur, I wouldn't open an SPI on behalf of any user, especially in this situation. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

---