User talk:BlackHades/Archive 1

Archive 1

IAASTD in GM food controversies article

hey

I saw you deleted the paragraph on IAASTD. I took a quick look at the report and I think I agree that the cited page mischaracterizes it (seems that IAASTD took great pains to make a nuanced report, and the cited source makes it black and white toward sustainable practices.. but I suggest you open a section in Talk on the GM food controversies page and present that.. if you don't I might do it. It's an interesting report -- thanks at least for calling my attention to it by deleting reference to it! Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited article was just one person's interpretation of the IAASTD report. Moses Kiggundu Muwanga from the board member of "International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements". While the IAASTD report doesn't exactly give the most favorable outlook on GMO, it doesn't ever make the conclusions asserted by Muwanga. The IAASTD report was also heavily criticized by the scientific journals "Nature" (Off the rails. Nature Biotechnology 26: 247) and "Science" (Dueling visions for a hungry world. Science 319: 1474-76). BlackHades (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Why are you reverting my edit?

Because there were other stat changes that other IP editors had done that hadn't been corrected, it was nothing against what you did, I was just bringing back the stats that were there before the vandals starting messing with the table. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are reverting an article which is covered by Arbcom sanctions

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

I recommend that you wait for consensus before making any more controversial changes at Race and intelligence. Note the suggestions for editor behavior given in the Arbcom alert box at the top of Talk:Race and intelligence. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There's been no consensus for KillerChihuahua to remove these huge chunks of WP:verifiability information. In fact, for many of these removal, he's the only one. And is very clear POV pushing that is in violation of WP:NPOV and ArbCom. BlackHades (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Request

Would you kindly move your comments at Talk:Race and intelligence to below mine? If you'll place something along the lines of "Comment on item I." before each of your edits it will be much easier to respond. Thank you very much. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind. Your addition of sections is a good idea. I'll just copy my sig to each. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Never never mind, looks like other would rather keep it linear. Sorry for the craziness. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up. In the future, please place your posts after the post you're addressing, and not within someone else's post. KillerChihuahua 23:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Personalized section headings

Would you please change the section headings on the talk page to remove references to specific editors, especially associating editors with misconduct. Per the talk page guidelines, you should not name editors in these headings and the heading should be neutrally worded. It does happen and I did it myself, this reasonably inhibits collegial and civil discourse. I have altered the more recent one, but you should retitle the other two that name specific editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. BlackHades (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes. I see no reason to sweep this under the rug and pretend BlackHades has not been personally attacking me, commenting on me and not the content, especially since he's still doing it. Removing my name from the headers accomplishes nothing except a pretense such attacks did not exist. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 03:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No one is trying to sweep anything. Personally attacking you? You removing scientific consensus from the article is POV pushing. Everyone can see it. You're being informed what wikipedia rule you're breaking. It's not a personal attack. BlackHades (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You should, however, cease your attacks and focus on content moving forward. KillerChihuahua 03:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some of us just want everyone to get along.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

KC, you should be following your own advice. BlackHades (talk)

R&I article

You should calm down and avoid snapping at KC or other editors. There is no reason whatsoever to believe there has been meatpuppetry. All the editors involved are regulars in the topic area as far as I know so their involvement is not unusual. Please remain open to discussion, even if it means going over old issues. One doesn't necessarily have to go over every last detail again if it has already been discussed, but you should be willing to at least explain why previous discussions reached certain decisions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Some are regulars. Some aren't. I'm not saying everyone is involved in meatpuppetry or even most. But there's definitely strong suspicion for a couple people. For now, I'll take a wait and see approach. I'll present all the evidence when it's time. BlackHades (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at all the involved editors and I see plenty of reason to believe they got there normally. There is no good reason to think otherwise, certainly not with those who are contributing most heavily to the discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm becoming suspicious about this idea also, particularly regarding Dougweller. Is he a "regular" on this article? There do not seem to be any comments by him in the recent archives, yet he knows far more about the early history of these disputes than someone legitimately new to the topic would know. 101.0.71.27 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

He's an administrator who is active on WP:AE, where many of these disputes wind up. aprock (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If he's an administrator on WP:AE, I assume he will not be part of AE if this goes to AE correct? As he's quite involved in this dispute now, there's certainly a bias factor if he's going to be in AE in this specific dispute. BlackHades (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been active in the case of socks of Mikemikev - sock puppetry is one of my pet peeves, to put it mildly. This guy is a really abusive sock - abusing both articles and editors. The article has been on my watchlist for years, it's just not one that I like getting involved with, partially due to all the conflicts. I've only edited the article twice, in August 2009 (info like this is linked on the history page, easy to find), and the talk page once in the past about two years ago to remind people this is under ArbCom sanctions, so my recent edit on socks & banned editors is in line with that. A bit ironic that the comment is from an IP address with only one edit. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a new user, I have a dynamic IP. I've been participating in the talk page discussions from other IPs in the same range. As you don't like to get involved in the article, what motivated you to suddenly begin participating at the same time as a few others with similar viewpoints, and post about history from ca. two year ago? I noticed the RockKnocker and GTZing socks, but both were blocked before they caused very much harm, so I don't get the impression this is worse now than at any other time. 101.0.71.21 (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I apologise. Of course you are the one with the dynamic IP. The article's on my watchlist. I'd been observing and finally decided to chip in when I was KC's edit on the 7th. It may well not be any worse than any other time, it's always had problems and once in a while people need reminding. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

sock trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's very curious is that Dougweller's post on R&I talk is not actually summarising the history of the dispute. Rather, it is parroting some of the same tiresome accusations Mathsci has been repeating for about two years and which have not been accepted by arbitrators. See here and here for two attempts by Mathsci to insert his claims about "proxy-editing" into the findings of fact, and particularly how arbitrators reacted to those attempts. One cannot help but wonder, given Dougweller's ideas are not founded in an arbitration ruling, where did they originate? Perhaps the answer lies with his little Freudian slip in the edit summary here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.161.30.218 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC) @BlackHades: The above post is obviously from a banned user who is seeking to exploit our disagreements to inject drama. Would you please remove it from this page, and remove my message as well, thanks. I saw it some hours ago and felt I should remove it, but I've been busy elsewhere and also didn't want to add to the drama myself. Some editors support the retention of all comments but in case you are not aware, some arbitrators have expressed a strong view that removal is best (particularly in the context of the subject matter and the named editor, both of which have been discussed at tedious length on several occasions at WP:ARBR&I pages. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Please don't remove it, I would like to see Dougweller's response to these points. I assumed his post on the article talk page was only a summary of past arbitration decisions, but it's apparent now that it wasn't. As per the two linked discussions on arbitration pages, Dougweller's post was a summary of how arbitration decisions were interpreted by one person, whose attempts to amend the findings of fact in accordance with that interpretation were unsuccessful. If Dougweller's familiarity with the article's history were only because he watched it for a long time, I would expect his summary to have been of the actual arbitration decisions, not of one person's interpretation of those decisions which did not receive much support from arbitrators. Dougweller, what is the reason for this? 101.0.71.6 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Hi, 101.0.71.0/24. The above posting by an open proxy IP is by a banned user, Echigo mole. That IP has been reported first at WP:SPI and later at WikiProject Open Proxies. The IP will soon be blocked. Please read this motion passed by arbcom on restoring/enabling disruptive edits by this banned user.[1] It would also be advisable to register an account. Several editors have asked you to do so already (eg on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel). Your edits have been exclusively using IPs in the narrow range 101.0.71.0/24, so can in prinicple be follwowed, but if you wish to make points cumulatively and for other users to follow them, it would be helpful to register an account. [2] I have redacted the comments of the ipsock. Please do not restore them or discuss them further; and please register an account. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I wasn't planning on naming names but now that 101 already has, Dougweller was one of the 2 I had suspicions of. That someone else thinks so as well makes it now even more curious. BlackHades (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I am restoring the above post, both because it's a significant accusation that should not be swept under the rug, and because no admin appears to have made a determination that this IP address was in fact Echigo mole. Mathsci tagged the account based on his own suspicion, and has no authority to make that determination himself. If this IP is shown to indeed be Echigo mole, then per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting I take responsibility for the content of the post: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." 101.0.71.6 (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC) @BH: Please revert 101.0.71.6's misguided reversal of the redaction. I would do that myself, but it would be unwise to engage a throw-away IP in an edit war on a user talk page—the IP doesn't care, and the conflict would be disruptive. Per WP:TPG, such removal is under your control and would not give rise to suspicions of disruption. May I also ask that you strike out all comments about meatpuppets as such remarks are not helpful for collaborative editing. Standard procedure is to either make a report at a suitable noticeboard, or avoid unsupported comments that have a chilling effect. That applies here, and at Talk:Race and intelligence where comments about other editors are particularly unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KillerChihuahua

This is the sort of reason why a lot of good editors hating editing or even commenting on articles such as R&I. It would have been nice to have been notified. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to when a response was posted right away. BlackHades (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And yes I hate it too. I avoided editing on this article for a long time. I reluctantly started after I noticed that the article was getting to be quite POV. With lots of omissions of reliable sources and lots of misinterpreted reliable sources. I never intended to have to spent this much time on this article. BlackHades (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to withdraw it and at least apologise to KC who you've accused of being a sockmaster. After all, if I'm a sock then I'm really KC, so no point apologising to me. But I don't think you know what a sockpuppet is, did you read WP:SOCK? Your whole argument is about me, not about how KC created me so that he can edit from 2 accounts. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Meat puppetry states that it should be filed under SOCK. BlackHades (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am very curious though. When KillerChihuahua removed that section, why did you think her reasoning of "not relevant" was valid? Average brain sizes difference that had a cited source of "Race, Intelligence, Brain" and its discussion with intelligence is not relevant to the article of Race and Intelligence? It just seems so odd to back her reasoning. BlackHades (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not discussing edits now or here. The big red X and the "This is a failed proposal" should have been a clue to ignore the page and do as it says, read the current policy at WP:MEAT. See the bits about new editors and about not calling people meat puppets. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was inadequately clear about this, but I don't suspect Dougweller or KillerChihuahua is a meatpuppet. My suspicion only was that Dougweller was privately canvassed by Mathsci to participate in the discussion, and I would be ready to let that drop as well if Mathsci weren't continuing to harp on it. I wish you could have predicted starting that SPI would not help anything. I think you are knowledgeable and helpful on the race and intelligence article, but please be more cautious in the future to avoid actions that could cause someone to block you. 101.0.71.13 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is so far away from NPOV right now. Which is the result of banning one by one any editor that comes along that doesn't edit the article in a POV environmental fashion. How does any rational person justify removing "Brain Size"? Such an intricate and heavily discussed part of this debate. It's such blatant POV pushing. But they one by one got rid of any and all editors that could possibly object to it. Look at the list of banned users from the article. Essentially all would be from one side of the debate. Does anyone actually believe editors from the environmental side with the exact same conduct doesn't exist? Can anyone name a single heavily involved participant of this article that wasn't pro environmental in which other editors never made an attempt to ban at some point?

I'm not saying I disagree, this just is not the time or the place to raise these issues. At the moment you're blocked for a week, by an admin who might or might not be involved. What we should do for now is look into whether Future Perfect is uninvolved or not, and I asked The Devil's Advocate if he knows the answer to that question. While you wait for your block to be over, something else you could do that would be helpful is work up drafts on your computer for the brain size and evolutionary theories sections that you offered to rewrite, so they can be ready to post on the article talk page when you come back after your block. (Please don't forget my suggestion to cite secondary sources as much as possible.) 101.0.71.29 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll actually be incredibly busy for the next 2 weeks and wouldn't have been able to spend much time, if any here, regardless of ban or not. So at least the timing of the ban is good. I would hope someone else makes a draft of "Brain Size" but the earliest I could probably work on it is probably 2 weeks from now. BlackHades (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editing with a disruptive battleground attitude, as evidenced especially in your frivolous WP:SPI report. This is a WP:ARBR&I enforcement block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone that doesn't edit the R&I page in a heavy environmental POV way, will get banned. As clearly evident by the history of banned users. A conduct of a lot of users have been much worse than any members that's been banned with the only difference being that they edit in a heavy environmental POV way. That of itself will assure you will never get banned regardless of conduct. It's a clear attempt to completely silence one side. BlackHades (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How many editors on R&I that wasn't editing in a pro environmental way has never had other editors make attempts to ban them? I rest my case. BlackHades (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hades, you DID make a mistake starting that SPI. Sorry, but arguing about inequality in who's sanctioned is unlikely to get you anywhere. I think The Devil's Advocate also will agree with that.

The one thing I am not sure about is whether Future Perfect was uninvolved enough to block you, as he was an involved party in some of the recent race and intelligence arbitration requests. If you wish to challenge your block, it would be better to do so based on WP:INVOLVED than the argument you are using. 101.0.71.13 (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No point. The margin to ban is razor thin for anyone on this side of the debate and nearly infinitely long for the other side. Other than Mathsci, has there ever been a pro environmental editor that's ever been banned? And I don't have a problem with the ban. I'm just saying there is absolutely no consistency with it. The rope to get banned is very very long if you're on the other side of the debate. There's no question. BlackHades (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again

I'm the 101.* user who commented here before, I finally have an account now. Would you like to work with me on rewriting some of the material that was removed from the race and intelligence article, like the brain size and evolutionary theories sections, so those eventually can be added back? Akuri (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I've been very busy but I'll look for time to work on it. BlackHades (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the brain size section,I suggest trying to fix some of the issues other editors raised with your draft here. Akuri (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The issues raised appeared to be they didn't want the Jensen/Rushton argument or anyone in support of their argument as part of the text. But removing that text violates WP:NPOV which states that all significant views must be represented. Removing that text also makes the environmental and neutral arguments difficult since those arguments cite Jensen/Rushton heavily so it's difficult to explain those positions without first explaining the Jensen/Rushton position. Basically some have requested the impossible. I can't address their WP:I just don't like it issues and I shouldn't have to. BlackHades (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if you don't want to make another proposal to restore the brain size section, I wish you wouldn't give up on the articles altogether. Other people agree with me that the new content being added is original synthesis, but almost nobody else cares enough to do anything about it. Akuri (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge problem with this article currently which I'm sure you're well aware of. All the editors for the article currently very strongly support the all environmental interpretation of the racial IQ gaps. There's nothing wrong with that itself and this would be perfectly fine if they followed Wikipedia guidelines but they don't. They block, delete, revert, tag any genetic interpretations that meets Wikipedia guidelines on the flimsiest of reasons but will not touch any environmental text even if the text is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines such as your original synthesis argument above.

I did not give up on this article. I simply do not have as much time nowadays. But I will do what I can and try to help out more. BlackHades (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I used to think restoring the removed content in this article would not be possible unless arbitration happened first, but now I think maybe it is possible. It seems that ArtifexMayhem finally understands consensus opposes his attempts to remove the brain size section. How about you try rewriting and restoring the evolutionary theories section as well? You seem to know more than me and The Devil's Advocate about sources for R&I, so I think you would the be best at writing the new version. 101.0.79.15 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems nobody notified you that Mathsci brought you up at AE, so I should let you know. The thread is here: [3] 101.0.79.10 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. BlackHades (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Race and genetics

Hello BlackHades, this is Akuri. I'm having to use proxies again because my IP address is caught in another rangeblock. I probably won't edit very much until I figure out whether I need to use proxies from now on, or whether there is another solution.

I wanted to call your attention to the changes ArtifexMayhem is making to the Race (human classification) and Race and genetics articles. I think someone should be paying attention to whether these changes are helpful or not, but I also think it would be best for me to not get directly involved in the articles again until I figure out what way I should connect to Wikipedia. this edit seems unhelpful to me because it's impossible to know what the colors on the map represent if that text is removed. If you disagree it's fine if you want to ignore these changes, but I'd like to know someone is paying attention to them. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. What happened to your account? How did you get caught in a rangeblock? BlackHades (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I was talking about the Race (human classification) article as well. Although it's fine to ignore his changes on that article if you think they don't matter.

My account is not blocked, but while my IPs are caught in a rangeblock it's easier to post without logging in. The reason for the rangeblock was discussed in King of Hearts' user talk. [4] It seems my default IP range is indistinguishable from a proxy or webserver, and some other IPs in the the blocked range have been abused by a sockmaster. It's frustrating because this same issue was discussed at AN two months ago, and the discussion there reached the conclusion that I should be allowed to edit from this range while logged in. By hard blocking this range, Timotheus Canens is ignoring the outcome of the AN discussion. But you don't have to try to argue with him about it. When Future Perfect at Sunrise did this in February, resolving it took a month, and then it only was another month before another admin did the same thing again. If that's how this always will go, a month of being able to edit from my default IP range isn't worth a month of arguing. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Race and Genetics

Hey, I saw that you reverted my edits to the article. I'm trying to mediate a conflict with a particularly stubborn creationist dude. Can you help with some input on it? The user is AndrewAz and he's been on my talk page and The Devil's Advocate as well. thoriyan _{talk!contribs!} 11:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Simply put, AndrewAz's edits are inappropriate and conflicts with the pillars of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to advance a viewpoint deemed to be fringe. Creationism has absolutely no support in the science community. Published peer review research on it does not exist and it is simply not appropriate to give any weight to such a viewpoint in this context. While AndrewAz is certainly entitled to his own personal opinions and beliefs, AndrewAz needs to review WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE and understand why giving such weight to scientifically unsupported ideas (e.g. flat earth, moon hoax, creationism) would be in violation of WP:NPOV. In accordance with WP:UNDUE, as creationism has essentially zero support in WP:reliable sources of the topic in question, to give it any weight here is a violation. BlackHades (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. thoriyan _{tlk - ctrbs} 20:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Seralini affair

I ask you politely to cease vandalising attempts to create balance on this page that are properly sourced. You claim there is no evidence that HCB and ANSES asked for long-term studies on GM foods based on the Seralini study, yet THIS REQUEST WAS MADE BY ANSES AND HCB IN THEIR DEDICATED ANALYSES OF THE STUDY. Do you understand? this is why I am reverting this edit.Dusha100 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to be familiar with wikipedia policies. Others have already tried to point these out to you. Instead of being hostile toward everyone trying to explain how to properly edit wikipedia, it would be in your best interest to listen to those that are trying to help you. No HCB and ANDES does not ask for long term studies based on Seralini. They ask for long term studies based on the lack of long term studies. What you did was WP:OR which is a violation of the policies set forth by wikipedia. If you believe it's not, you should be capable of quoting text directly from the source that accurately supports your statements. It is your WP:BURDEN to expressly demonstrate the text you're adding is supported by sources which you have failed to do. BlackHades (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving comments on WP:DRN

Hi! Generally, dispute resolution volunteers are given a lot of leeway when it comes to things like moving the current discussion to the bottom, collapsing or even (in severe cases and after several warnings) deleting comments or asking someone to leave if they violate our guidelines. (The usual procedure involves getting at least two other volunteers to agree -- we don't want to give anyone undue power)

On the the other hand, we try to discourage participants from doing that, because emotions are often running high and other participants can be quite touchy. There is no rule against it, and nobody will get into trouble over something like this, but things run a lot smoother if you drop me or another volunteer a line on our user page if anyone -- volunteer or participant -- moves something that you think should not be moved.

BTW, I really like the way you are approaching this. Sometimes it is a struggle to get participants to present calm, rational arguments, but everybody involved -- and you in particular -- are making some insightful arguments. Keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor? I will have no problem if you decide not to. Originally, I wanted my "write up a paragraph saying 'here is what I think the best reasons...'" request to be at the bottom so as to maximize the responses I would get. Through some reverting, it ended up not at the bottom, and you ended up being the only one who responded. Rather than opening up a potential can of worms by moving something again, I decided to just ask again at the bottom. Would you be so kind as to answer again at the bottom? It can be mostly cutting and pasting. As I said, I am OK if you don't want to do this, but it would help.

Also, please note the wording of the question. I asked for an answer to the first question, a wait for the other fellow to answer, then an answer to the second question. I hope that this will encourage more back-and-forth dialog compared to answering both questions at once. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion of the experiment to help resolving the dispute. It was a good idea of yours and would have helped but it only works if everyone agrees to partake on it. Unfortunately no one else seems willing to. I do commend your patience with all of us through all this. :-P BlackHades (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation clutter

Hi! If you didn't notice, just to let you know that I re-grouped the citations on the GM controversies page yesterday. I was looking over the history today and I saw this edit which means that my edit was (unintentionally) a revert. Sorry for not opening a discussion. :-) As I mentioned in the edit summary, the rationale is WP:CITEKILL, especially the last section ("How to trim excessive citations"); also see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations. I'm happy to talk further if you'd like - there are a couple of other places where this issue should be addressed but I'll wait for your response before proceeding. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I reverted earlier because there was no explanation for the grouping but if the explanation is WP:CITEKILL I'm perfectly okay with it. BlackHades (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your amazing responses on Talk:Race and genetics which really impressed me and made me appreciate you explaining that in such detail. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) BlackHades (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Race and genetics RfC

Hi BlackHades, I've just closed your RfC. I just wanted to thank you for setting up such a well-structured RfC. It was very clearly explained and laid out, which made it easy to follow and close. Almost a pleasure. :) Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) And thanks for the assistance in summary and closing. BlackHades (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments on other editors at Talk:Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy

Article talk pages are not the proper venue for your views on the motivations of other editors. E.g.,

To be honest, I was surprised at the length Aprock was willing to go to block and impede important relevant content simply because it doesn't match his personal position.
— User:BlackHades 21:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that, without very strong supporting diffs, the above allegation constitutes an unacceptable personal attack on a long time editor of good standing. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I never started the discussion on Aprock's conduct. Kobayashi245 and WeijiBaikeBianji were already having it. I joined the discussion but I was really just trying to bring up the point that we shouldn't have the same long and drawn out situation that occurred in the previous article, happen in this article, since we are discussing the exact same content. But I think we all want to move on from this now so let's just all move on. BlackHades (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Global warming

Hi, You can't change text based on a new RS without also changing the RS cited in the text. You went from 90% to 95% (which is fine) but you left the cite to AR4 instead of changing the cite to the AR5 Working Group #1's "Summary for Policymakers" (which is not fine). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and update the refs. BlackHades (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What current sources are you recommending on human population structure and genetic variation?

Hi, BlackHades, after the lengthy discussion of Richard Dawkins's book The Ancestor's Tale (a book I read a few years before the discussion on some of the Wikipedia article talk pages came up), I was wondering what more current and more scholarly sources you recommend on the issues of human population structure by lineage of descent and genetic variation among and between various human populations. I ask, because I will be making another library run to a huge university library in the next day or so, so I thought I'd look up any sources you particularly recommend. I have good access to the full text of both books and journal articles from that library. It looks like it will be helpful to carefully check the wording and emphasis of current medically reliable sources, a kind of source I have been reading since the 1970s, to help resolve some of the editing issues that have come up repeatedly on several of the articles on both of our watchlists. I would be grateful for any source suggestions you have. I have added a few sources just in the last day or so to my source list on related topics, and I would be delighted to hear about other sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I will look into it and compile a list together for you in the coming days. BlackHades (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My next library run looks slated to be today, but the library will still be there the next time I hear about new and useful sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

AE

Given the recent post to your talk page, do you think it is time for AE for this editor? Boomerang time? Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

He is a new editor. I tend to give a little more leeway toward new editors since they don't often seem to be very familiar with procedures and policies. But even still, he is starting to go too far. I just put a 3RR notice on his talk page so if he still doesn't undestand after this, or at least show some willingness to try to understand, then yeah it would be time for AE. Especially on top of the "active arbitration remedies" notice you've already provided him. BlackHades (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but no more rope. As you and I don't seem that much in agreement over content, this would be a impartial report if it has to be made. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be delightful if the new editor visiting these pages we watch would read some of the better sources, and then provide talk page discussion of what those mean, but if his approach to editing is not source-oriented and collaborative, we may as well invoke discretionary sanctions for what is, after all, one of the most edit-warred articles on Wikipedia already. I'll suggest an accessible source over on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)