User talk:BlackHades

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)