User talk:Biohistorian15

This is Biohistorian15's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

April 2024

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

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

Social construction of gender

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

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

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

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

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

Quick thank you

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

Best, and thank you,

Bluetik Bluetik (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Western conservatism

Greetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, looks good after all. Two questions though:

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

Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

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

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

A friendly reminder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2024

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

Points to note:

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

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

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

July 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please use edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

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

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

Revert

Hi Biohistorian15,

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

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

thanks Alenoach (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

July 2024 (2)

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

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

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

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

Points to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contentious topics alert for pages related to gender-related issues and people

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

Linking to the discussion about edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2024 (by Generalrelative)

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

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

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

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

Vandalism at Big lie

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

August 2024: blocked as sock

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Biohistorian15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All the following:

(a) Oldstone James and his sockpuppets speak English such as – as an editor that I normally disagree with at a time considered to be the sockpuppets' defining features – commonly mention their "fluency in Russian, and both share an apparent interest in linguistics, as well."[15] Now, that Oldstone James speaks Russian is easily established,[16], but he apparently also speaks French.[17] I, however, personally speak English and German (and at a perfectly idiomatic level, not the mistaken one I seem to have selected on my user page); which I am quite open to proving by whatever avenue (e.g. any amount of non-trivial de.wiki edits,[18] scheduled translations, third party zoom call...) you may choose.

(b) ~~I currently live in Germany and have only ever contributed from German IP addresses; and please simply have a CheckUser verify that claim.~~

Correction 1 by Biohistorian15: By now, the puppet master has apparently already submitted a (soon reverted) statement in my defense below, in which they state of Germany:[19]

"It's where I lived at the time of my site ban. This is likely why CheckUser has identified your sockuppetry as possible. In case it may be helpful, I lived in Berlin."

I would like to put on record that I have never lived (nor edited) in Berlin whatsoever. I ask CheckUsers to please verify this crucial fact all for themselves!

(c) I also started my wiki "career" mostly over at the much more relaxed (en.)wikiquote, where I accrued ~2400 edits before publicly realizing that nobody even reads those articles anyways (cf. e.g. [20] of multiple). Note that the other user has a mere 3 minuscule edits on the project, none of which relate to politics at all.[21]

(d) The user(s) I stand accused of being a sockpuppet of, furthermore, also edit in a totally different time zone than I do; if you exclude sleepless nights, in which I naturally edit in both mine and theirs. See my addendum below for more details.

Correction 2 by Biohistorian15 is also necessary in light of the puppet master's apparent admission to have lived in Germany at least for some time.[22] In any case, I maintain that the editing clearly followed a very different daily pattern (that can not easily be explained away by uninterrupted segments away at work etc.). For one, I can't have blue light too late in the day or I will not be sleeping well. Since I sometimes cannot help this, I've probably pulled lots of fully functional all-nighters; that's not a common thing for people to do, is it? I think this, to some extent, still sets me apart from the other accounts.

(e) Regarding arguably the very last vestige of WP:DUCK in this case, namely a potential overlap in the users' content, I would like to advance a semi-quantifiable argument. We'll intuitively go step by step to get there:

(1) Note that Oldstone James at the time of his block had roughly as many edits as I had at the time of mine. (2) Please diligently review the following two pairs of links I generated with Xtools commonly used (and accepted) in SPIs: [23] and [24], such as: [25] and [26]. Finally note that per the Editor Interaction Analyser tool, the acting admin has almost twice as much overlap with my supposed puppet master than I do with him; and per the Intersect Contribs tool, I have an overlap of 41 articles with my supposed puppet master, while my accuser has an overlap of 61. (3) Quod erat demonstrandum, ScottishFinnishRadish is apparently more likely to be the aforementioned sockpuppet than I am.

Please don't tell me this is good enough evidence to even get started here. No matter what else happens, WP:NOTFISHING should have long overruled any other reasons for the CU by this point.

After all, sure, if you throw the dice long enough, you'll find somebody that, in the past, lived in some (albeit different) part of the same 83.8 million inhabitant country as I now do.

What's more, I certainly do not share any of the user's pronounced and well-established fixations on things like chess (cf. many such edits by the two actual sockpuppets[27][28]), soccer or creationism (cf. e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32]; he even received a topic ban [33]...), all of which I'd personally happen to find rather tedious. Nor have I engaged in the socks' established behavioral pattern of editing various linguistics articles only an Eastern European would really know much about to begin with (cf. e.g. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] ...).
Furthermore, what some users in the SPI argue to have been the supposed puppet master's main focus,[40] the race and intelligence article, I merely edited (and immediately self-reverted) a single time by mistake when I was first experimenting with Twinkle[41] (In fact, I was so inexperienced at the time that I remember for some reason not managing to do a full manual revert without first modifying some of the text; which was, why I simultaneously also made an addition to the "See also" by the way).

(f) Oldstone James' original SPI was justified originally along the following lines:[42]

"On 18 January [2020], Oldstone James attempted to appeal his creationism topic ban. it quickly became apparent this wasn't likely to succeed, and it was SNOW-closed. NaìuviaAeo was created a day later."

Why would my supposed puppet master have created a sock puppet long before any of this? My account was created in 2018, not 2020. Another line of evidence so obvious that I do no longer believe in mere negligence at play here.

(g) Or might all this actually be about my (now already reverted because of this block for some reason),[43] talk page edit right before this sudden block, where I had constructively criticized a section relating to WP policy on sockpuppetry for being worded inappropriately? Now, please don't tell me an actual sockpuppet would make edits like that while already engulfed in other content-level controversies left and right... Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=All the following:<p>'''(a)''' [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] and his sockpuppets speak English such as – as an editor that I normally disagree with at a time considered to be the sockpuppets' defining features – commonly mention their <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">"fluency in '''Russian''', and both share an apparent interest in '''linguistics''', as well."</q>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#02_March_2020] Now, that [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] speaks Russian is easily established,[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4/Oldstone_James], but he apparently also speaks French.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=prev&oldid=943759150] I, however, personally speak English ''and German'' (and at a perfectly ''idiomatic'' level, not the mistaken one I seem to have selected on my user page); which I am quite open to proving by whatever avenue (e.g. any amount of non-trivial de.wiki edits,[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Biohistorian15] scheduled translations, third party zoom call...) you may choose.<p>'''(b)''' <s>I currently live in Germany and have only ever contributed from German IP addresses; and please simply have a CheckUser verify that claim.</s><p>

::<u>'''Correction 1 by [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]]:'''</u> By now, the puppet master has apparently already submitted a (soon reverted) statement in my defense below, in which they state of Germany:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biohistorian15&diff=prev&oldid=1239568324] <blockquote class="talkquote" >"It's where I lived at the time of my site ban. This is likely why CheckUser has identified your sockuppetry as possible. In case it may be helpful, I lived in Berlin."</blockquote> I would like to put on record that I have never lived (nor edited) in Berlin whatsoever. I ask CheckUsers to please verify this crucial fact all for themselves!<p>
'''(c)''' I also started my wiki "career" mostly over at the much more relaxed (en.)wikiquote, where I accrued <u>~2400 edits</u> before publicly realizing that nobody even reads those articles anyways (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:BD2412#On_WQ_in_general] of multiple). Note that the other user has a mere 3 minuscule edits on the project, none of which relate to politics at all.[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oldstone_James]<p>'''(d)''' <s>The user(s) I stand accused of being a sockpuppet of, furthermore, also edit in a ''totally'' different time zone than I do; if you exclude sleepless nights, in which I naturally edit in ''both'' mine and theirs.</s> [[User talk:Biohistorian15#Full Addendum regarding my "different time zones" objection|See my addendum below for more details.]]<p>
::<u>'''Correction 2 by [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]]'''</u> is also necessary in light of the puppet master's apparent admission to have lived in Germany at least for some time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biohistorian15&diff=prev&oldid=1239568324] In any case, I maintain that the editing clearly followed a very different daily pattern (that can not easily be explained away by uninterrupted segments away at work etc.). For one, I can't have blue light too late in the day or I will not be sleeping well. Since I sometimes cannot help this, I've probably pulled ''lots'' of fully functional all-nighters; that's not a common thing for people to do, is it? I think this, to some extent, still sets me apart from the other accounts.<p>

'''(e)''' Regarding arguably the very last vestige of [[WP:DUCK]] in this case, namely a potential overlap in the users' content, I would like to advance a semi-quantifiable argument. We'll intuitively go step by step to get there: 

:: '''(1)''' Note that [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] at the time of his block had roughly as many edits as I had at the time of mine. '''(2)''' Please diligently review the following two pairs of links I generated with ''Xtools'' commonly used (and accepted) in SPIs: [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=ScottishFinnishRadish&users=Oldstone+James&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] and [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Biohistorian15&users=ScottishFinnishRadish&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki], such as: [https://intersect-contribs.toolforge.org/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users%5B%5D=ScottishFinnishRadish&users%5B%5D=Biohistorian15&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&sort=0] and [https://intersect-contribs.toolforge.org/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users%5B%5D=ScottishFinnishRadish&users%5B%5D=Oldstone+James&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&sort=0]. Finally note that per the ''Editor Interaction Analyser'' tool, the acting admin has almost twice as much overlap with my supposed puppet master than I do with him; and per the ''Intersect Contribs'' tool, I have an overlap of <u>41</u> articles with my supposed puppet master, <u>while my accuser has an overlap of 61.</u> '''(3)''' '''Quod erat demonstrandum, [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] is apparently more likely to be the aforementioned sockpuppet than I am.'''
::: Please don't tell me this is good enough evidence to even get started here. '''No matter what else happens, [[WP:NOTFISHING]] should have long overruled any other reasons for the CU''' by this point.<br>
:::: After all, sure, if you throw the dice long enough, you'll find ''somebody'' that, ''in the past'', lived in some (albeit ''different'') part of the same 83.8 million inhabitant country as I now do. 
What's more, '''I certainly do not share any of the user's pronounced and well-established fixations''' on things like chess (cf. many such edits by the two ''actual'' sockpuppets[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maxipups_Mamsipupsovich][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Na%C3%ACuviaAeo]), soccer or creationism (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Answers_in_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=892292307], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&diff=prev&oldid=892311558], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=893364749], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=893347523]; he even received a topic ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=936384701]...), all of which I'd personally happen to find rather tedious. Nor have I engaged in the socks' established behavioral pattern of editing various '''linguistics articles only an Eastern European would really know much about to begin with''' (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_phonology&diff=prev&oldid=972414541], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faux_Cyrillic&diff=prev&oldid=973495898], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_phonology&diff=prev&oldid=969268398], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%81%E2%80%93l_merger&diff=prev&oldid=973510893], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belarusian_Latin_alphabet&diff=prev&oldid=965112984], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%98&diff=prev&oldid=962810183] ...).<br>Furthermore, what some users in the SPI argue to have been the supposed puppet master's main focus,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#20_June_2021] the [[race and intelligence]] article, I merely edited (and immediately self-reverted) ''a single time by mistake'' when I was first experimenting with Twinkle[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=1216671902] (In fact, I was so inexperienced at the time that I remember for some reason not managing to do a full manual revert without first modifying some of the text; which was, why I simultaneously also made an addition to the "See also" by the way).<p>'''(f)''' [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James']] original SPI was justified originally along the following lines:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#02_March_2020]
<blockquote class="talkquote" >"On 18 January '''[2020]''', Oldstone James attempted to appeal his creationism topic ban. it quickly became apparent this wasn't likely to succeed, and it was SNOW-closed. [[user:NaìuviaAeo|NaìuviaAeo]] was created a day later."</blockquote> 
Why would my supposed puppet master have created a sock puppet long before any of this? '''''My'' account was created in 2018''', not 2020. Another line of evidence so obvious that I do no longer believe in mere negligence at play here.<p>'''(g)''' Or might all this actually be about my (now already reverted because of this block for some reason),[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser&diff=prev&oldid=1239374462] talk page edit right before this sudden block, where I had constructively criticized a section relating to WP policy on sockpuppetry for being worded inappropriately? Now, please don't tell me an actual sockpuppet would make edits like that while already engulfed in other content-level controversies left and right... [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15#top|talk]]) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=All the following:<p>'''(a)''' [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] and his sockpuppets speak English such as – as an editor that I normally disagree with at a time considered to be the sockpuppets' defining features – commonly mention their <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">"fluency in '''Russian''', and both share an apparent interest in '''linguistics''', as well."</q>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#02_March_2020] Now, that [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] speaks Russian is easily established,[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4/Oldstone_James], but he apparently also speaks French.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=prev&oldid=943759150] I, however, personally speak English ''and German'' (and at a perfectly ''idiomatic'' level, not the mistaken one I seem to have selected on my user page); which I am quite open to proving by whatever avenue (e.g. any amount of non-trivial de.wiki edits,[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Biohistorian15] scheduled translations, third party zoom call...) you may choose.<p>'''(b)''' <s>I currently live in Germany and have only ever contributed from German IP addresses; and please simply have a CheckUser verify that claim.</s><p>

::<u>'''Correction 1 by [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]]:'''</u> By now, the puppet master has apparently already submitted a (soon reverted) statement in my defense below, in which they state of Germany:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biohistorian15&diff=prev&oldid=1239568324] <blockquote class="talkquote" >"It's where I lived at the time of my site ban. This is likely why CheckUser has identified your sockuppetry as possible. In case it may be helpful, I lived in Berlin."</blockquote> I would like to put on record that I have never lived (nor edited) in Berlin whatsoever. I ask CheckUsers to please verify this crucial fact all for themselves!<p>
'''(c)''' I also started my wiki "career" mostly over at the much more relaxed (en.)wikiquote, where I accrued <u>~2400 edits</u> before publicly realizing that nobody even reads those articles anyways (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:BD2412#On_WQ_in_general] of multiple). Note that the other user has a mere 3 minuscule edits on the project, none of which relate to politics at all.[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oldstone_James]<p>'''(d)''' <s>The user(s) I stand accused of being a sockpuppet of, furthermore, also edit in a ''totally'' different time zone than I do; if you exclude sleepless nights, in which I naturally edit in ''both'' mine and theirs.</s> [[User talk:Biohistorian15#Full Addendum regarding my "different time zones" objection|See my addendum below for more details.]]<p>
::<u>'''Correction 2 by [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]]'''</u> is also necessary in light of the puppet master's apparent admission to have lived in Germany at least for some time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biohistorian15&diff=prev&oldid=1239568324] In any case, I maintain that the editing clearly followed a very different daily pattern (that can not easily be explained away by uninterrupted segments away at work etc.). For one, I can't have blue light too late in the day or I will not be sleeping well. Since I sometimes cannot help this, I've probably pulled ''lots'' of fully functional all-nighters; that's not a common thing for people to do, is it? I think this, to some extent, still sets me apart from the other accounts.<p>

'''(e)''' Regarding arguably the very last vestige of [[WP:DUCK]] in this case, namely a potential overlap in the users' content, I would like to advance a semi-quantifiable argument. We'll intuitively go step by step to get there: 

:: '''(1)''' Note that [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] at the time of his block had roughly as many edits as I had at the time of mine. '''(2)''' Please diligently review the following two pairs of links I generated with ''Xtools'' commonly used (and accepted) in SPIs: [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=ScottishFinnishRadish&users=Oldstone+James&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] and [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Biohistorian15&users=ScottishFinnishRadish&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki], such as: [https://intersect-contribs.toolforge.org/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users%5B%5D=ScottishFinnishRadish&users%5B%5D=Biohistorian15&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&sort=0] and [https://intersect-contribs.toolforge.org/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users%5B%5D=ScottishFinnishRadish&users%5B%5D=Oldstone+James&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&sort=0]. Finally note that per the ''Editor Interaction Analyser'' tool, the acting admin has almost twice as much overlap with my supposed puppet master than I do with him; and per the ''Intersect Contribs'' tool, I have an overlap of <u>41</u> articles with my supposed puppet master, <u>while my accuser has an overlap of 61.</u> '''(3)''' '''Quod erat demonstrandum, [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] is apparently more likely to be the aforementioned sockpuppet than I am.'''
::: Please don't tell me this is good enough evidence to even get started here. '''No matter what else happens, [[WP:NOTFISHING]] should have long overruled any other reasons for the CU''' by this point.<br>
:::: After all, sure, if you throw the dice long enough, you'll find ''somebody'' that, ''in the past'', lived in some (albeit ''different'') part of the same 83.8 million inhabitant country as I now do. 
What's more, '''I certainly do not share any of the user's pronounced and well-established fixations''' on things like chess (cf. many such edits by the two ''actual'' sockpuppets[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maxipups_Mamsipupsovich][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Na%C3%ACuviaAeo]), soccer or creationism (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Answers_in_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=892292307], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&diff=prev&oldid=892311558], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=893364749], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=893347523]; he even received a topic ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=936384701]...), all of which I'd personally happen to find rather tedious. Nor have I engaged in the socks' established behavioral pattern of editing various '''linguistics articles only an Eastern European would really know much about to begin with''' (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_phonology&diff=prev&oldid=972414541], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faux_Cyrillic&diff=prev&oldid=973495898], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_phonology&diff=prev&oldid=969268398], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%81%E2%80%93l_merger&diff=prev&oldid=973510893], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belarusian_Latin_alphabet&diff=prev&oldid=965112984], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%98&diff=prev&oldid=962810183] ...).<br>Furthermore, what some users in the SPI argue to have been the supposed puppet master's main focus,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#20_June_2021] the [[race and intelligence]] article, I merely edited (and immediately self-reverted) ''a single time by mistake'' when I was first experimenting with Twinkle[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=1216671902] (In fact, I was so inexperienced at the time that I remember for some reason not managing to do a full manual revert without first modifying some of the text; which was, why I simultaneously also made an addition to the "See also" by the way).<p>'''(f)''' [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James']] original SPI was justified originally along the following lines:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#02_March_2020]
<blockquote class="talkquote" >"On 18 January '''[2020]''', Oldstone James attempted to appeal his creationism topic ban. it quickly became apparent this wasn't likely to succeed, and it was SNOW-closed. [[user:NaìuviaAeo|NaìuviaAeo]] was created a day later."</blockquote> 
Why would my supposed puppet master have created a sock puppet long before any of this? '''''My'' account was created in 2018''', not 2020. Another line of evidence so obvious that I do no longer believe in mere negligence at play here.<p>'''(g)''' Or might all this actually be about my (now already reverted because of this block for some reason),[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser&diff=prev&oldid=1239374462] talk page edit right before this sudden block, where I had constructively criticized a section relating to WP policy on sockpuppetry for being worded inappropriately? Now, please don't tell me an actual sockpuppet would make edits like that while already engulfed in other content-level controversies left and right... [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15#top|talk]]) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=All the following:<p>'''(a)''' [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] and his sockpuppets speak English such as – as an editor that I normally disagree with at a time considered to be the sockpuppets' defining features – commonly mention their <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">"fluency in '''Russian''', and both share an apparent interest in '''linguistics''', as well."</q>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#02_March_2020] Now, that [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] speaks Russian is easily established,[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4/Oldstone_James], but he apparently also speaks French.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldstone_James&diff=prev&oldid=943759150] I, however, personally speak English ''and German'' (and at a perfectly ''idiomatic'' level, not the mistaken one I seem to have selected on my user page); which I am quite open to proving by whatever avenue (e.g. any amount of non-trivial de.wiki edits,[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Biohistorian15] scheduled translations, third party zoom call...) you may choose.<p>'''(b)''' <s>I currently live in Germany and have only ever contributed from German IP addresses; and please simply have a CheckUser verify that claim.</s><p>

::<u>'''Correction 1 by [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]]:'''</u> By now, the puppet master has apparently already submitted a (soon reverted) statement in my defense below, in which they state of Germany:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biohistorian15&diff=prev&oldid=1239568324] <blockquote class="talkquote" >"It's where I lived at the time of my site ban. This is likely why CheckUser has identified your sockuppetry as possible. In case it may be helpful, I lived in Berlin."</blockquote> I would like to put on record that I have never lived (nor edited) in Berlin whatsoever. I ask CheckUsers to please verify this crucial fact all for themselves!<p>
'''(c)''' I also started my wiki "career" mostly over at the much more relaxed (en.)wikiquote, where I accrued <u>~2400 edits</u> before publicly realizing that nobody even reads those articles anyways (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:BD2412#On_WQ_in_general] of multiple). Note that the other user has a mere 3 minuscule edits on the project, none of which relate to politics at all.[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oldstone_James]<p>'''(d)''' <s>The user(s) I stand accused of being a sockpuppet of, furthermore, also edit in a ''totally'' different time zone than I do; if you exclude sleepless nights, in which I naturally edit in ''both'' mine and theirs.</s> [[User talk:Biohistorian15#Full Addendum regarding my "different time zones" objection|See my addendum below for more details.]]<p>
::<u>'''Correction 2 by [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]]'''</u> is also necessary in light of the puppet master's apparent admission to have lived in Germany at least for some time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biohistorian15&diff=prev&oldid=1239568324] In any case, I maintain that the editing clearly followed a very different daily pattern (that can not easily be explained away by uninterrupted segments away at work etc.). For one, I can't have blue light too late in the day or I will not be sleeping well. Since I sometimes cannot help this, I've probably pulled ''lots'' of fully functional all-nighters; that's not a common thing for people to do, is it? I think this, to some extent, still sets me apart from the other accounts.<p>

'''(e)''' Regarding arguably the very last vestige of [[WP:DUCK]] in this case, namely a potential overlap in the users' content, I would like to advance a semi-quantifiable argument. We'll intuitively go step by step to get there: 

:: '''(1)''' Note that [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] at the time of his block had roughly as many edits as I had at the time of mine. '''(2)''' Please diligently review the following two pairs of links I generated with ''Xtools'' commonly used (and accepted) in SPIs: [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=ScottishFinnishRadish&users=Oldstone+James&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] and [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Biohistorian15&users=ScottishFinnishRadish&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki], such as: [https://intersect-contribs.toolforge.org/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users%5B%5D=ScottishFinnishRadish&users%5B%5D=Biohistorian15&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&sort=0] and [https://intersect-contribs.toolforge.org/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users%5B%5D=ScottishFinnishRadish&users%5B%5D=Oldstone+James&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&sort=0]. Finally note that per the ''Editor Interaction Analyser'' tool, the acting admin has almost twice as much overlap with my supposed puppet master than I do with him; and per the ''Intersect Contribs'' tool, I have an overlap of <u>41</u> articles with my supposed puppet master, <u>while my accuser has an overlap of 61.</u> '''(3)''' '''Quod erat demonstrandum, [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] is apparently more likely to be the aforementioned sockpuppet than I am.'''
::: Please don't tell me this is good enough evidence to even get started here. '''No matter what else happens, [[WP:NOTFISHING]] should have long overruled any other reasons for the CU''' by this point.<br>
:::: After all, sure, if you throw the dice long enough, you'll find ''somebody'' that, ''in the past'', lived in some (albeit ''different'') part of the same 83.8 million inhabitant country as I now do. 
What's more, '''I certainly do not share any of the user's pronounced and well-established fixations''' on things like chess (cf. many such edits by the two ''actual'' sockpuppets[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maxipups_Mamsipupsovich][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Na%C3%ACuviaAeo]), soccer or creationism (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Answers_in_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=892292307], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&diff=prev&oldid=892311558], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=893364749], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=893347523]; he even received a topic ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=936384701]...), all of which I'd personally happen to find rather tedious. Nor have I engaged in the socks' established behavioral pattern of editing various '''linguistics articles only an Eastern European would really know much about to begin with''' (cf. e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_phonology&diff=prev&oldid=972414541], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faux_Cyrillic&diff=prev&oldid=973495898], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_phonology&diff=prev&oldid=969268398], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%81%E2%80%93l_merger&diff=prev&oldid=973510893], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belarusian_Latin_alphabet&diff=prev&oldid=965112984], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%98&diff=prev&oldid=962810183] ...).<br>Furthermore, what some users in the SPI argue to have been the supposed puppet master's main focus,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#20_June_2021] the [[race and intelligence]] article, I merely edited (and immediately self-reverted) ''a single time by mistake'' when I was first experimenting with Twinkle[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=1216671902] (In fact, I was so inexperienced at the time that I remember for some reason not managing to do a full manual revert without first modifying some of the text; which was, why I simultaneously also made an addition to the "See also" by the way).<p>'''(f)''' [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James']] original SPI was justified originally along the following lines:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive#02_March_2020]
<blockquote class="talkquote" >"On 18 January '''[2020]''', Oldstone James attempted to appeal his creationism topic ban. it quickly became apparent this wasn't likely to succeed, and it was SNOW-closed. [[user:NaìuviaAeo|NaìuviaAeo]] was created a day later."</blockquote> 
Why would my supposed puppet master have created a sock puppet long before any of this? '''''My'' account was created in 2018''', not 2020. Another line of evidence so obvious that I do no longer believe in mere negligence at play here.<p>'''(g)''' Or might all this actually be about my (now already reverted because of this block for some reason),[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser&diff=prev&oldid=1239374462] talk page edit right before this sudden block, where I had constructively criticized a section relating to WP policy on sockpuppetry for being worded inappropriately? Now, please don't tell me an actual sockpuppet would make edits like that while already engulfed in other content-level controversies left and right... [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15#top|talk]]) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Full Addendum regarding my "different time zones" objection

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

Biohistorian15 Generated using XTools on 2024-08-10 10:02 Time card

	0:00	1:00	2:00	3:00	4:00	5:00	6:00	7:00	8:00	9:00	10:00	11:00	12:00	13:00	14:00	15:00	16:00	17:00	18:00	19:00	20:00	21:00	22:00	23:00
Sunday	6	6	8	10	4	3	10	16	20	33	25	27	28	27	31	25	34	33	43	30	14	9	5	6
Monday	7	15	6	1	2	8	38	19	29	29	33	54	40	43	32	25	26	20	21	30	7	0	0	0
Tuesday	1	6	8	4	8	11	9	5	10	20	18	39	52	40	44	71	35	32	60	87	11	2	1	5
Wednesday	0	1	11	26	13	52	10	10	51	30	29	59	58	56	30	52	52	48	42	41	12	2	5	0
Thursday	0	0	1	8	5	1	5	17	27	26	38	17	73	74	39	27	90	42	55	35	14	3	9	4
Friday	3	5	0	1	7	7	19	11	23	54	26	30	47	47	30	36	76	44	33	49	26	1	0	4
Saturday	2	2	0	0	0	0	3	7	35	32	48	44	27	31	28	18	36	41	16	49	5	0	1	2

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

	0:00	1:00	2:00	3:00	4:00	5:00	6:00	7:00	8:00	9:00	10:00	11:00	12:00	13:00	14:00	15:00	16:00	17:00	18:00	19:00	20:00	21:00	22:00	23:00
Sunday	18	13	14	17	2	1	0	0	7	15	8	10	33	43	19	37	25	24	46	43	51	57	45	31
Monday	27	9	8	4	0	2	2	3	11	10	9	11	14	21	14	31	16	29	39	43	59	32	26	20
Tuesday	6	11	7	0	0	1	0	3	2	5	11	7	12	12	20	19	21	34	44	29	43	36	53	38
Wednesday	19	10	8	8	3	1	3	0	4	1	15	1	21	17	19	41	32	51	32	17	28	34	26	10
Thursday	10	9	10	7	7	3	0	1	0	2	10	13	5	10	21	12	38	32	26	13	28	25	30	15
Friday	14	25	21	10	0	4	2	6	8	0	4	14	22	26	26	25	42	58	48	58	37	50	78	46
Saturday	19	12	12	4	2	5	0	0	8	4	19	21	30	41	47	25	34	36	24	43	41	25	28	31

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

	0:00	1:00	2:00	3:00	4:00	5:00	6:00	7:00	8:00	9:00	10:00	11:00	12:00	13:00	14:00	15:00	16:00	17:00	18:00	19:00	20:00	21:00	22:00	23:00
Sunday	18	11	4	9	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	8	9	12	7	11	18	7	9	11	2	16	11	6
Monday	13	8	6	0	0	2	1	0	4	6	6	10	7	7	3	2	8	7	10	12	21	9	11	9
Tuesday	5	8	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	7	7	5	18	12	12	15	6	2	8	9	3	7	8
Wednesday	13	7	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	5	3	5	7	3	6	4	5	4	3	12	1	2	5	3
Thursday	0	4	4	9	2	6	2	2	0	0	4	7	3	6	3	3	8	6	3	3	6	10	4	8
Friday	7	3	5	0	1	0	1	0	1	11	7	6	11	12	13	15	7	3	1	2	6	4	5	6
Saturday	6	2	0	5	2	5	1	5	4	5	7	12	23	5	7	5	1	2	12	2	17	27	9	24

Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

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

Thread that may first look like an admin already took on the case, but ended with them not wanting to be involved at all

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

All enwiki Checkusers are Admins. We use technical data to confirm whether accounts are run by the same person. But not to prove they aren't. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, we too have had serious disagreements only recently (cf. above on the talk page). But I implore you to, at least, publicly verify my justifiable suspicion that I have (most likely) solely contributed from a totally different country than the purported puppet master. I regularly edit from multiple distinct local addresses of mine (as you should be able to verify by geolocating some of the semi-static IPs from my home wifi(s)...) such as using mobile internet; all of which are clearly inconsistent with someone merely abusing some kind of VPN proxy etc. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I do not believe Russian citizens – which Oldstone James arguably likely is – have been able to easily get/renew a VISA for my country whatsoever in light of the ongoing war. I, in fact, did not happen to edit on en.wikipedia in a period prior to its outbreak at all... Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can’t do that. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, you can (given my explicit desire) verify that my part of the story is correct; so long as you don't tell people the exact city I live in, I'd like to add. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHECKME "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." Doug Weller talk 10:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one problem: it states in the same article under WP:MAGIC8BALL that:

"If the user has said they're from a certain region and their IP address confirms that, you are permitted to declare that CheckUser verifies they are."

I don't really understand. I suppose this is the global policy that's then overwritten locally... Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's for if a CU has been carried out. Sorry, I have run out of time for this. Have you seen my talk page? Please don't contact me again. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Doug Weller, could you please help me understand why the acting admin could possibly have been so confident in banning me without so much as opening a courtesy SPI on me etc.; I think I have clearly established above that this is as far from a WP:DUCK as you can get. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I spoke to a checkuser who told me that by technical data it was

Possible to

Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) on the technical side. I blocked primarily based on behavioral evidence, which is available to the checkusers, but I'm not going to go into in much detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off target and or even actively false flag discussion by IP user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For a few hours I've tried to decide whether to mention something here or not. It relates to Biohistorian's point above, so now I'll say it. Admins reviewing his block should know that this post at Facebook was made about an hour after he was blocked. [44] The post can't be directly linked to because it's only viewable to that person's FB friends. I don't feel comfortable discussing the context of that post or the background of who made it, but the admins commenting here might be already aware of those details. 84.212.187.87 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this may surely be an attempt at WP:MEATPUPPETRY, but, again, please do not close anything prematurely here. It doesn't really matter, insofar as only a bold ruling by admins and or CUs (such as, later on, ArbCom members) could still absolve me anyways...Furthermore, it should also be noted that the IP's png is entirely unverifiable in any case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood why I mentioned this. I'm not at all glad that you were blocked. But apparently that post's author is, and the admins reviewing this discussion should be aware he's bragging about it. From Ad Orientem's comment below it seems that now it's too late to change anything, but this could at least be mentioned to Arbcom, if you decide to appeal your block there. It's very likely they know who that person is. 84.212.187.87 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into all of this, but if this is the same Emil O. W. Kirkegaard that also runs a prominent racialist blog such as edits a journal which – while also, surely, receiving unfair coverage on WP to some extent – isn't perfectly unbiased as far as I can tell, this won't exactly help. ... If anything, he might consider my ban a negative. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mason (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would never have called another editor "dumb" as that basically guarantees the post being deleted.
Why would he admit to speaking German when there is otherwise no evidence of his speaking the language? He might have wanted to brag, but how exactly does that help me?
He used the term "cabal", as in e.g. this picture that is, in fact, commonly used on here (cf. right); I didn't exactly come up with this term.
What does "glib" even mean? I have been told by every teacher since grade school that I have a peculiar (not necessarily good) writing style. Any details? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not buying any of this at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeCrumbs, you too are one of the users involved here that has a pattern of activism throughout your contributions. Please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made two comments to you (three now with this). Given you probably ought to be blocked for about a half-dozen things, from WP:RGW to WP:BATTLEGROUND to WP:NPA outside of sockpuppeting, I would say "physician, heal thyself." I will, however, take this as a formal request to no longer reply to you, so I will not; I think it'll be a moot issue very soon anyway. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If/when I am exonorated here, you may well take me to the AN/I over this issue on a seperate occasion. You may, of course, still comment, but repeating the same accusation (cf. the first comment above) in such a fashion is arguably, once more, clearly WP:BLUDGEON.

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

Pinged relevant admin that happened to be too busy

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since I was permitted to call for third opinions above: I would like to invite the very admin who declined Oldstone James' two sockpuppets' unblock requests in the past,[47][48] namely 331dot, to please reply with a general statement as to the likelihood of me being another sockpuppet of theirs. Please consider all the behavioral evidence I submitted to the contrary in my unblock request. In any case, please do not close the request prematurely though, as my emails to various CheckUsers have not been answered/resulted in the official and complete SPI I have directly called for yet. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not at present have the time to devote to looking into this matter. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, before I close this (sub-)thread too, may I ask if you know any admins without any relevant political history for me to ping here that do have the time to figure out (e.g. after evaluating secret evidence they claim to have[49] in direct correspondence with them) if the acting admin's ban was justified? Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that you not ping admins here. Quite frankly I doubt you will find anyone with the time to review this lengthy matter. If you want to make this a trial then you should go to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good to know. I'll now try getting CU evidence by an uninvolved party (i.e. not Doug Weller e.g., who I had a serious dispute with just days prior...) via a complete and standard SPI. And if that, somehow, returns a result like "possible", I'll make a wider case at the ArbCom. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This situation is so ridiculous. I have even been thinking about posting here from my home computer via Remote desktop for when I go on vacation two weeks from now, all just to make sure there is no further misunderstandings... What a time sink. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks for responding, @ScottishFinnishRadish. I have read up a lot on policy in the last few days. (a) "CU memory" might well have meant that my purported puppet master lived in Germany (as he admitted before). Not good enough for "possible to possilikely". (b) Presumably rather expansive "CU notes" are, to my knowledge, absolutely not a common practice (cf. e.g. the explicitly specified upper limit for the rare "system backup"[52]). I recommend that the CU personally reach out to the Ombuds commission before further evidence of such activities is discovered. After all, there is no question that I'll manage getting somebody (e.g., in the ArbCom) to officially check the logs relating to my case at some point. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No longer relevant

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

ScottishFinnishRadish, if I make very clear that none of the readers ought to flood the thread here with (in any case mostly irrelevant) support, could I ask a few questions about my situation in the German wiki teahouse? This is important as no relevantly qualified user has so far answered my emails with even basic policy questions at all.Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, although different wikipedias have different policies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]