1379:, I would not rest it only on these two examples. I need to think and consult about what othersshould be included . More important, I need to think exactly what it is that we want to ask for: Are we asking for sanctions against editors who are grossly and prejudicially misusing FRINGE; Are we asking for an interpretation of "Fringe"? Or are we saying that how we handle FRINGE is a content question and not under the jurisdiction of arb com, and that therefore part or all of the decisions on this topic should be revised or removed, along with all sanctions based on them? Can we logically ask for all three at the same time? (for the third, do we even want it not under their jurisdiction and subject to the whims of the community?)
2029:
786:). Generally this leads to good outcomes (favoring evolution over creationism, medicine over homeopathy, etc.), but will run into problems if and when there are well-documented biases in academia. Unfortunately, in such instances (R&I, COVID-19, etc.), no amount of logic or reason or critical thinking will ever overcome this fundamental pro-academic bias. Knowledge is designed to parrot the mainstream scientific view, no matter what. "Resistance is futile."
1830:
2998:
698:
rather than for finding the truth and sharing it with the public. On the bright side, everyone knows that
Knowledge does not have the final say on what the truth is; it only reflects the sources chosen by the editors, who could come from anywhere. Knowledge itself acknowledges this and I think the general public knows this, too. It is just that many of us turn to Knowledge for the sake of convenience rather than treating it as a sort of oracle.
373:. If they will support such a bold-faced falsehoodâdespite overwhelming evidence to the contraryâagainst the rather mundane and uncontroversial fact that considerations of political correctness often limit research in this area, it's clear that they are completely and utterly blinded by ideology, untethered from reality and the demands of intellectual honesty. As such I have lost all hope that they are capable of any rational discourse at all.
92:
quite a few people who paid attention to our trolling project at
RationalWiki in 2018-2019, and who understand that this claim about modern psychometrics was always intended as a parody of left-wing extremism. Now that this parody argument is unironically being repeated at Knowledge, it makes a very strong point about how vulnerable Knowledge is to being manipulated by right-leaning trolls if they adopt the rhetoric of antiracism.
2826:
667:
how. More fundamental revision will depend upon further publications, and the necessary publications will be at least one major university press book and several authoritative reviews in the major non-specialist journals that makes the current state of consensus clear. As for the approach of arb com, see the current refusal to take action at the arb case at
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Origins of COVID-19
2747:
83:) that make this argument about an older generation of psychologists such as Rushton who were involved with the Pioneer Fund. But with respect to the claims of covert racism against modern hereditarian psychometricians (such as Haier, Rindermann, Warne, etc.) who've never indicated any interest in far-right political causes, these claims originate from our parody material at RationalWiki and from nowhere else.
3039:
2911:
2222:
1387:
things hat will not work: one is arguing that our view of things is right., just that it needs a hearing. The other is getting invovled in details--concise cases work best. The opponents will then some of them bring up all sorts of length irrelevancies, most of which can be ignored. Unfortunately, I can't promise my style would work, and I can't predict how much energy I'll have.
35:, about the FAQ misrepresenting its sources. Like your own earlier attempt to raise a similar issue at the NOR noticeboard, this discussion was swiftly shut down, and the same presumably will continue to by done to any future discussions that raise similar issues. So I doubt it would accomplish anything for you to bring up this issue yourself; I just want you to be aware of it.
763:
discredited published 50 years ago, and further degrees of absurdity. ). The only really likely way to get it right is to bring it up again at 6 month or 12 month intervals. There is no solution in a system like WP when those interested in a topic insist on getting it wrong. Just as there is no solution in the RW when all the authorities insist on getting something wrong.
2695:
1429:
obvious way, and how the community has been prevented from discussing this, as every attempt to raise it at noticeboards has been shut down before it could be meaningfully discussed there. It seems like it will be necessary to provide Arbcom with at least a summary of the specific issues, so that they'll understand why there is a problem that requires their attention.
758:
expressed them, but they are more likely to in response to new unquestionably reliable sources than in response to argument. . As i have been saying, what you need is such sources saying explicitly that the view is out of date. (and with respect to the Covid lag leak theory, not even such sources convinced many of them. There is always going to be the argument that
39:
page theory", but its origin was not on talk pages of
Knowledge articles. It originated at RationalWiki, as a parody of left-wing views introduced across multiple articles there with the intention of discrediting the site. I know this because I was one of the people who helped add this parody material, although several other people also were involved.
2764:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see
1489:
clarification of the conflict between policies-- between fringe as now interpreted, and the basic WP:V & WP:RS.--we would say the fringe decision was limited to extreme cases, and should be again. We would also say we do not want to argue the issues themselves in the request, But I need to review the earlier decisions first
1585:
for the first time in WP, been under direct attack for trying to help too strongly the person being bullied. There is a limit to my ability to remain calm and detached here, and it has been reached. I cannot cope with another loss, but even if it looks like reason might prevail, I may not be able to participate meaningfully.
957:
opinion about. As I said in your user talk, the main options are to request an arbitration case or to nominate the FAQ for deletion, and I suppose a third option is to give up and do nothing. I don't support the "do nothing" option, but I would like us to try to come to an agreement about one of the other two.
942:
most editors agree that the consensus is that a non-negligible genetic component of intellectual differences between racial groups is unlikely. That's about as much as I can tell you. Oh, I can also tell you that one of the opening sentences of the article is trivially false, but I think you already know that.
2411:
To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any
2081:
I have the impression that your basic motivation for being on
Knowledge is not to be a troll. If you actually want to be constructive, don't wait to turn things around, but decide to work with your fellow editors, not against them, when you find yourself holding a minority viewpoint. If you did this,
1944:
I saw what you noted and removed, and I'll respond real quick: CRYBLP is valid for obvious BLP violations, but in this case that wasn't so obvious at all, and you had been reverted by, if I remember correctly, three different editors, so that is going to be a real hard case to make. Nor do I see that
1677:? Analyzing the validity of a scientific consensus is obviously extremely fraught and controversialâany time the scientific consensus gets called into question, it inevitably provokes insinuations and accusations of sweeping "conspiracy theories". But nevertheless, a rational bayesian analysis really
1584:
I was waiting to see the attitude at a current arb enforcement case involving similar issues; I thought it might show increasing acceptance of the need for true NPOV, but it is instead showing continued use of selective enforcement to topic-ban those insistent on dissenting views. I have additionally
1428:
Lately we - and other editors who share our concerns - have not had any success in arguing individual issues, so continuing that approach is very unlikely to be useful. However, I'm hopeful that Arbcom could take a broader perspective about how on these articles some policies are being violated in an
1382:
We have one chance to do this right. This may be the time, but I have consulted a few people who I expect might understand, and I'm not sure they do . If it doesn't look likely, we'ddo better continuing to pres son individual issues. (if nothing else, I'm better at judging how hard to press than I
956:
Thanks. What do you think those of us who have tried to address this issue (primarily myself, Stonkaments, Ferahgo the
Assassin, DGG, Sesquivalent and AndewNguyen, as well as Literategeek and Insertcleverphrasehere in some of the older discussions) ought to do about it? That's the thing I'd like your
712:
What's going on is a bunch of editors are voting to ignore policy based on their opinion of the subject. Most votes are something like "race isn't a valid concept because of skin color so all sources using the concept are wrong". Obviously the sources they're dismissing don't think so, so it's a case
566:
of one's arguments makes very little difference, because these sorts of arguments inevitably are shut down without receiving a meaningful response (and as
Gardenofaleph pointed out above, this has also happened when editors tried to raise these issues at noticeboards). This eliminates the possibility
440:
Hey
Stonkaments, since several editors whoâve objected to these recent changes are already here, it might be useful to try and have a discussion here on your talk. We might be able to figure out what's an effective way to address to the problem of unverifiable material in the article and the FAQ. All
367:
Thank you for that context, but I think I've run out of patience with banging my head against the wall of these sad POV-pushers. Editors at that page are now defending with a straight face the FAQ answer that political correctness has not impacted the study of race and intelligence, specifically that
2132:
article, because this is getting tiresome. You can still contribute to the talk page. And I will tell you, this partial block option, it's really good in your case because I would have blocked you altogether from everything. Please consider that your idea of being right does not give you the license
2106:
Thank you, I genuinely appreciate the advice. But I'll admit I'm at a bit of a lossâhow can one productively work with a majority of editors that seems to be motivated by ideology to the extent that they're willing to violate WP policy, including misrepresenting sources and the scientific consensus,
1759:
One member of Arbcom has suggested requesting a new case and a few other people have advised against it, but no one has yet suggested an alternative solution that has any chance of producing a resolution. I think it's important to get more guidance from Arbcom with respect to this issue, considering
1609:
Editors (and commentators off-wiki) frequently appeal to scientific consensus, or "Science", but fail to consider the conditions necessary for science to reliably generate trustworthy results. Humans are inherently biased, and generally function more like self-serving politicians than scientists (no
1386:
The sequence should be first the decisions, then the gathering of diffs,, then an outline, then wordsmithing it as concisely as possible. This is a little different than either a scientific paper, or an argumentative essay. A subpage of this page will be the best place, when we get to it. I know two
1200:
A case about these issues needs to happen, but I think the only editors who would be interested in requesting it are the editors commenting in this discussion. The four main people who could possibly do it are myself, Stonkaments, DGG, and
Ferahgo the Assassin, and I don't think I'm the right person
1098:
I agree that should cover fringe topics generally, with these and other examples, in both science and other fields. In the current situation
Stonkaments should not be the one to request a case, nor should you. I hope someone else will do it, because I doubt I will have the energy for the nest few
941:
Unfortunately, I have close to 0 expertise in genetics, so I'm afraid I'll be of little help here. I don't know how qualified psychometricians are to comment on the connection between race and intelligence â just as I don't know precisely what the scientific consensus is on the matter. It seems like
643:
to get worse if we do nothing, especially because of what I mentioned in my last point above. It isn't my intention here to argue for arbitration specifically; my argument only is that waiting for more sources to be published is no longer a viable strategy. Do any of you (especially Berchanhimez and
217:
for example, in which the closing admin told Stonkaments that in order to remove the material that several editors think misrepresents its sources, first he would have to successfully argue on the article's talk page that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe. As far I can tell, there appears to
198:
for this claim about modern psychometrics are the parody articles at RationalWiki. Those articles are the origin of this meme that there is a racist "walled garden" of psychometrics research, which keeps getting repeated by Knowledge editors, but for which nobody has ever been able to provide a real
161:
is short-term tolerant of un- or poorly-sourced material if and only if it is not controversial). It is entirely better for WP to remain silent about something (e.g. the scientific basis of some particular claim, and even mention of that claim at all) than to rely on bullshit sourcing, because that
2154:
I'm not "doing the same thing all over again". I made the first productive edit that actually provides meaningful context on the controversy and criticism of Wade's article, so I thought (naively, it turns out) that level heads would prevail and removing the link to misinformation would now be more
2077:
You've built up a substantial track record first of wasting time of other editors in talkspace pushing points of view that are clearly not going to persuade many, and second making edits that are the wrong side of the policy boundary in articlespace. I've seen this kind of behaviour many times over
1410:
as a justification to violate other Knowledge policies, and a set of principles about how WP:FRINGE should be applied to articles. I think it's very clear the editing environment in the R&I topic area won't be able to improve on its own. I also think Arbcom needs to clarify how to reconcile the
1008:
I think someone should request an arbitration case, but maybe its scope shouldn't be limited to race and intelligence. It could be titled something like "presentation of fringe topics", and could cover both R&I and the origins of COVID-19. As I understand it, in both topics the disputes resolve
876:
I think that requesting an arbitration case would be worth trying. The worst thing that could happen is that ArbCom declines the request, and then things would not be any worse than they currently are. And they might accept it. Misrepresenting sources is a problem of behavior, and it's demonstrable
697:
To put it bluntly, given that the other side is steadfastly refusing to be convinced as a matter of course, I doubt there is much we can do. We also do not need to continue to be exposed to their hostility. Such is the reality of politicizing science or turning it into a tool to support an ideology
545:
The new FAQ clearly is intended to preemptively reject future sources that go against the current consensus of Knowledge editors. This is most evident in its arguments that the field of psychometrics should be discounted, and this field accounts for about 80 percent of published scholarship related
344:
Based on this consensus, I think that as long as the hereditarian hypothesis is classified as a fringe theory, the unverifiable material can't be challenged at noticeboards. So unfortunately, what you're suggesting is not possible in this case. But if you have any other suggestions I'd like to hear
91:
supported their subsequent project to add the same type of material to Knowledge. My preference was, and still is, for Knowledge to be an actual encyclopedic website. However, at this stage I don't deny the logic of their plan. As can be seen from the above linked discussions at Twitter, there were
38:
Second, I'd like you to be aware of the origin of the theory (as presented in the FAQ) that the field of psychometrics is covertly racist, and that this explains why in that field there is more published scholarship in favor of the hereditarian view than against it. Sesquivalent called this a "talk
1488:
more tomorrow, but i am reluctant to ask for sanctions:, which cause lasting antagonisms--I have to work with these editors in many contexts for many more years i want guidelines for using it, but the likely response is going to be: "it's up to the community", I .Maybe the best approach is the
1335:
would either of you be willing to write a first draft of the arbitration request, on this page or in your userspace? I can help fill in details about the R&I topic area if needed, but I think one of you would be best at summarizing the shared issues that R&I and the origin of Covid have in
902:
Between this discussion, the earlier discussions, and the new discussions initiated by Maxipups Mamsipupsovich, it's clear there are quite a few editors who recognize there's a serious problem here. When there are this many editors recognizing the problem, it shouldn't be necessary to have to give
826:
Current discussion of another fringe topic at MfD has led me to recommend against trying to use either that or arb com for trying to deal with those restricting the discussion of science. I am regretfully coming to the view that the WP community in general may have adopted their prejudices. I do
1907:
This is an obvious case of edit warring, and that's why I blocked you. However, you've been alerted to ArbCom's ruling on BLPs, on fringe science, and on COVID, and I would not be surprised if the next admin who looks at your recent edits imposes a sanction. And judging from other notes here, I'm
673:
I personally have no intention of forgetting the issue, and I will not give up when it's as important as this. That does not mean I will try when it will be counterproductive, but thatI will keep trying , about once every yer at the very most; in situations like this, I usually advise two years.
666:
As I read it, the consensus seems to be against the proposal that that the field of psychometrics should be discounted , on the basis that the source for this was a parody. That's enough reason to revise the FAQ. I think we can probably manage to get that taken care of, but I need to think just
114:
For what it's worth, I can confirm the accuracy of at least some of what the IP is saying here. Some of the people who added this parody material were talking to me about it as they did it, although I didn't add any of it myself. This is the thing that I alluded to in the last sentence of my vote
54:
article were deleted for that reason, but more than 90% of our parody material about ISIR and the people associated with it has remained basically unaltered. In some cases, the users adding this material about intelligence researchers left deliberate clues so that those who looked carefully could
1642:
to produce trustworthy results in the absence of either of these two conditions. COVID-19 lab leak theory fails #1, as it revolves around hypotheses that are largely unfalsifiable at present (same goes for debates such as the future impact of global warming). And the race and intelligence debate
1115:
Yes, I think that's a good ideaâaddressing the presentation of fringe topics beyond just R&I could be very beneficial, though I have no intention of being very involved in the discussion. As mentioned in a previous comment, I think one key point is that the default bias against fringe topics
86:
I don't recall you having been involved in any of the earlier discussions about this issue, so I'd also like you to be aware of something about my own relation to this material. I agreed with Kirkegaard and the other members of his Slack that RationalWiki was a disreputable website, and that the
322:
about whether the hereditarian view is fringe or not. So in other words, it is the clear consensus of the community that the question of whether the hereditarian hypothesis is fringe or not, and the question of whether the unverifiable material must be included, can't be treated as two separate
258:
are good for. It should be clearly demonstrable that the claim is not found in RS but is being parotted from a parody site. Then a consensus of uninvolved editors at the noticeboard would decide the claims should be removed, and it would not longer be a he-said-she-said fight between involved
231:
According to Stonkaments' response below, his patience with respect to this topic is pretty much exhausted, so your advice here would be especially valuable for that reason. Also, the article talk page is extended-confirmed protected, so don't think I'll be be able to comment there myself until
762:
particular publication is unreliable--it's from the editor, not peer-reviewed, it's from someone who once said something else, it's from someone who once published in the same journal as someone who is discredited , it's from someone who once published in the same journal where someone who
757:
If it attracts unprejudiced people, it might conceivably work. l. But that is something I cannot tell. Wait 2 months, and then ask me again. Trying different things right after each other infallibly attracts the same people as before. People do not easily change their prejudices once they've
412:
Heh, well I guess it's one thing to notice an article isn't neutral, but it's another to see "how the sausage is made" so to speak. I didn't realize that these articles don't fail neutrality haphazardly, due to a few overzealous editors, but rather a concerted effort by the biased majority.
212:
As for your proposal that someone should remove the unverifiable material: how do you suggest anyone could accomplish that? As you'll know if you've been following these articles over the past few months, every recent attempt to remove unverifiable material has been rejected or shut down as
2449:, when you declined on hte basis of "per below", you are declining on the basis of a persistent wiki-opponent of the person involved. The question of which way the discussion is going is irrelevant, but fwiw, at the moment the general argument about sources is not in favor of the O: -->
546:
to race and intelligence. When there is a permanent notice on an article's talk page rejecting the reliability of most of the published scholarship about the article's subject, it probably won't be possible for the publication of new sources to have an effect on the article's content.
736:
Do you think an MFD for the FAQ would succeed? (Comments from others are also welcome.) I think a lot of users might instinctually support keeping the FAQ, without understanding how a large part of the reason it exists is to argue for an approach to sourcing that's contrary to the
3150:: "When notifying other editors of discussions don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate."
1116:
generally serves WP quite well (properly dismissing pseudoscience and conspiracy theories which are all too pervasiveâhomeopathy, flat-earth, QAnon, etc.). So I don't think WP's default bias against fringe theories can or should be changed, but rather how do we combat the
1781:
I do hope for change in these areas--I do not expect it to come quickly, because I think the participants in WP, just like people in the world generally, are not actually prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but rather look for evidence to support their own
124:
There are probably also a few other active Knowledge users who know about this trolling project, who might speak up if they can be made aware of this discussion. This actually is pretty widely known, as evidenced from the above linked discussion from Eric Turkheimer's
424:). That means the majority of editors in that topic area have placed ideological motivations ahead of core principles like verifiability and NPOV, which makes me apprehensive about the resiliency of WP more broadly in the face of such ideologically motivated efforts.
194:, but that paper is about 20th century psychologists such as Rushton, and does not actually discuss any of the modern psychometrics researchers or research organizations such as ISIR. What the IP is saying, and I think this is correct, is that the only sources that
2802:. Even though I disagree with you there, I think your first reversion was a sensible one, and your point about GR's edit changing more than just the lead was a good one. If it matters, I don't think that counts as a reason to not count it in the 3RR calculus.
2107:
to promote their views? I'm genuinely curious if you have any ideas, because another more experienced editor has told me that it's basically impossible: "There is no solution in a system like WP when those interested in a topic insist on getting it wrong."
971:
I don't think nominating the FAQ for deletion will do it. Some of the controversial issues aside, I think it does a good job at briefing the editor/reader on the state of affairs. Requesting an arbitration case is undoubtedly the preferred option for me.
497:
in some of your past comments, you've indicated that you felt that those of us who were raising objections had not done so in an effective way. However, you weren't specific on what approach you thought would be effective. Could you please elaborate on
1128:, so the policies are already in place; it's just a matter of enforcing it. And I guess I'd also like to see addressed the "weaponization" of fringe as an excuse to remove reliable sources, which I don't think is supported by any policy guidelines.
2488:
personally, I would unblock, but I'm involved with the editors and the underlying issues. (my guess is that the underlying issues of how we handle Fringe is likely to end up at arb com), so I can';t ask more than that you use your own judgement.
2416:
Furthermore, at the time of my edit the count was 5 to 5 for/against removing the link (and an additional 3 to 1 from the BLPN discussion I believe). No surprise I guess that you'll distort the facts here just as you have in pushing your POV as
1446:
have mostly given up, and all of the noticeboard threads that attempted to raise these issues are now 2-4 months old, so if we wait a long time there is a risk Arbcom would decline the request because they consider it to be about a stale issue.
1461:
Right, so what are we supposed to do next? I've never requested arbitration before (or helped another person request it), so I don't know all the steps involved. Should we be collecting diffs now? And if so, diffs of what specific things?
1254:
Could the four of us work on this together? Presumably the act of submitting the request to ArbCom can only be done by one person, but before it's submitted we could work together on developing a draft of the request on a user talk page.
567:
that anyone could successfully argue against the approach to sourcing prescribed in the FAQ. This could only be improved by something that changes the editing environment (such as an arbitration case), not by new sources being published.
526:, you advised against requesting an arbitration case, and suggested waiting for more sources to be published before raising the issue again. However, at this stage I think it's clear that's no longer a viable strategy, for three reasons.
66:
The goal of this project was to demonstrate how RationalWiki would allow and promote the most paranoid, defamatory conspiracy theories as long as they supported the site's ideology. Judging by some of the reactions we received, such as
1146:
is impossible to enforce (both the part about editors who misrepresent sources getting topic banned, and also the part about not citing newspapers or blogs as sources), and I doubt that could be addressed only by amending an existing
1614:
because of the power of the scientific method (just as we don't blindly trust journalists in general, but trust reliable sources specifically because of their process of fact-checking, vetting sources, etc.). The scientific method
2422:. As for the strength of the argument, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Though I'd argue that when one side has to resort to misrepresenting the facts, that would tend to indicate they have the weaker argument in general.
1099:
months, and it will take careful preparation to show the generality of the problem. Perhaps it might be better to ask for a arb com clarification of the original Fringe decision than a full case--I need to think about that. .
1643:
fails #2, as the scientific community is seemingly quite hostile to falsification of the null hypothesis. That is to say, none of these issues has reached a scientific consensus based on a genuine application of the scientific
376:
Sadly, this whole episode has greatly harmed my estimation of the accuracy and neutrality of the Knowledge project more generally, especially on articles that are likely to be a sensitive subject for the identity politics mob.
368:"researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so". Of course, this flies in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary from numerous, uncontroversial reliable sources
1568:
Sorry for the ping, but it's been nearly a month and we haven't heard anything from you. There seems to be a clear consensus here that the amendment request needs to be made. Is that something you're still intending to do?
793:
the scientific consensus. But when their misrepresentations are simply overstating a case that generally aligns with the scientific consensus in its broad strokes, it's understandably hard for the community to police that.
1025:, and the two disputes also involve a lot of the same editors. I'm certainly the wrong person to request such a case, but perhaps someone who is familiar with both disputes, such as DGG or Stonkaments, could give it a try.
285:
Both of those discussions were quickly shut down before the community could make a meaningful decision. In the second discussion, it was pointed out that the editors adding this material won't allow it to be discussed at
2127:
was referring to, but I will tell you this, if you get blocked for edit warring and then, a few days later, do the same thing all over again, you are not going to make many friends. And so I blocked you from editing the
3119:
Hello. Sorry for crashing in into your page. Did not know where to post. Saw your reply on the Reverse-Racism page. They have that consensus that you questioned plus Whites being the only group not to be capitalized.
445:), so I think a user talk page might be the best place to discuss this. Would it be okay with you if I ping some of the other people who have raised these objections, and if we have this discussion in your user talk? -
1383:
am about arb cases). I understand your urgency, but my timescale is longer, and I do better the longer I think before writing. (we also need to see what micht else be pending with respect to some ot he individuals)
2383:. This discussion has been ongoing for a few days, and both the strength and the number of arguments was against you. Yet, you, this very morning, altered the subject of the dispute (a wikilink, of all things) -
3084:
2954:
2473:
I was unaware of thatâit merely seemed like, as in so many other cases, the OP was misrepresenting his actions. I will revert my denial or strike it out as you suggest might be appropriate (Or even unblock).
1995:
The count at time of writing was 4-2 (3-1 excluding involved editors) in favor of sourcing being required to avoid a BLP violation. Please stop spreading lies, and stay off my talk page while you're at it.
1647:, and so we can't reliably trust that consensus. Trusting the "Science" in these areas amounts to blind faith in the trustworthiness of scientists in generalâwhich is basically the exact opposite of proper
2309:
I wasn't edit warring, and have no intention to do so. I only attempted to change the link once (since being unblocked), and it was in the context of adding significant new relevant material to the article
782:
has really helped me understand the problem in a new light. Knowledge is fundamentally committed to the primacy of academic and scientific sources above all others ("its cult of the sanctity of mainstream
3068:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
2938:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
2536:
100:
1719:
I've recently discussed this issue via email with a member of Arbcom. Based on that discussion I have an idea of what makes the most sense to do, but I need to check up on a few more things first.
99:
is another user who is aware of the parody (and probable parody) material that's been added in this topic area, so I encourage you to discuss it with him if you're interested in more details.
2576:
162:
is bullshit people will call us on. It brings the project into disrepute to use bogus material to make a socio-political point regardless what that point is or what ideology is behind it.
2592:
2560:
157:, RationalWiki isn't a source WP can use anyway, all parody considerations aside. Any material that can't be better sourced than that has to be removed (not should or may be but must be;
232:
either I have more edits or the protection expires. Whatever you think should be done, it will have to be done by someone who is able to edit that page, such as yourself, Stonkaments, or
1142:
I agree a case covering both topics sounds like a good idea. IMO it should be a full case, not an amendment request. One of the problems that needs to be addressed is that the article's
3053:
2924:
2544:
2552:
2520:
1784:
Truth will ultimately prevail, it always does; but it will likely require a lot of patience and understanding to get there. Starting another RfC so soon may do more harm than good.
42:
At the time when we were adding this material to RationalWiki in 2018-2019, the fact that it was intended as a deliberate parody was quite widely acknowledged. See the discussions
741:. If the FAQ is going to be nominated for deletion, the MFD will need to explain very clearly how the FAQ relates to the new approach to sourcing that's been advocated recently. -
877:
that multiple attempts for the community to resolve that problem have failed, due to the discussions all having been shut down before the community could meaningfully discuss it.
2528:
218:
be a consensus that as long as the hereditarian hypothesis is classified as a fringe theory, the unverifiable material in both the FAQ and the article itself cannot be removed.
827:
not know any direct way of dealing with this. I've gone as far in my comments as I think will do any good.The only advice I have is that people should protect themselves.
2600:
2614:
2568:
1760:
talk pages and noticeboards have only produced circular arguments between the same group of editors (the discussion that you linked to being one such example). -
1724:
Would you mind turning on your Knowledge email feature? Once I'm clear on what the next step ought to be, I'd like to be able to discuss it with you privately. -
24:
Since you have been commenting on the new FAQ for the race and intelligence talk page, there are two things about it that I'd like to make sure you're aware of.
2584:
413:
Correcting the mistakes and untruths of a small minority of POV-pushing editors is fairly straightforward, but when those untruths are being pushed by a biased
2372:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
1774:
Thanks for the pingâI'm very busy these days and don't have any great insight into what a good next step would be (a properly worded and contextualized RfC
2702:, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
75:, we succeeded at demonstrating that. What I want to emphasize here is that these claims about contemporary researchers in the field of psychometrics come
2316:). I refrained from making any more edits after being reverted, and will continue to refrain from further edits until gaining consensus on the talk page.
2033:
2021:
119:, that I almost mentioned during the RFC at RSN, but I ultimately decided to not bring up there because I didn't want to derail that discussion further.
2660:
2264:
1662:, for example, that there's no evidence of a genetic component behind racial IQ differences. And it's just one small step to say that's what the
1669:
But, is Knowledge equipped to handle this problem? Is it possible to recognize the limitations of scientific research without overreaching into
3011:
2776:
2618:
2656:
191:
80:
3107:
2977:
2626:
2396:
1654:
I think this also sheds some light on the issues we've seen of editors misrepresenting the scientific consensus, because I think they're
1406:
Of the three issues you mentioned, I think an arbitration case should be about the first two: sanctions against editors who have misused
2357:
1877:
674:
More in a day or two about the FAQ. (I'm thinking about a MfD, which has the potential to overrule almost anything in WP space. ) .
104:
2646:
2259:
977:
947:
570:
If things continue along their current trajectory, the editors who've objected to the approach prescribed in the FAQ will gradually
402:
270:
173:
2838:
Thanks a lot for writing the criticism section! It is very comprehensive, and much more neutral than what I could've done. Kudos!
1438:
Another week or two is probably fine, but not too long--in the R&I topic area the editors who were objecting to violations of
139:
To clarify, this information was being discussed in a voice chat in the RationalWiki Discord, and that's where I heard about it.
1930:
I was reverting a BLP violation, which I was under the impression is not subject to the edit-warring policy. Is that incorrect?
1809:
Hi. This is just a courtesy notice that I've blocked this IP editor from your talk page, in support of their topic ban. Info is
43:
3103:
2973:
2622:
575:
1606:
itself, so I'm wondering if this is where we should focus the ArbCom discussion. General overview of the argument as follows:
3135:
1858:
1765:
1729:
1574:
1452:
1341:
1089:
746:
649:
450:
2053:
I must express my opinion that you would do well to stay out of it once you return. There's enough conflict there already.
2807:
2798:
Hi Stonkaments, I know you're already aware of 3RR. Here's a non-template heads up that you're up against it right now at
2545:
Feminist critique of Knowledge's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report
3077:
3022:
2947:
2843:
2609:
1866:
973:
943:
846:
323:
questions. As I mentioned in my last comment, the admin who shut down the discussion at NORN gave a similar explanation.
3089:
2959:
2760:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
1870:
283:
2450:
P.'s position. There is equal reason for a block on both parties or a block on neither, but not on one of the two.
319:
issue, and you need to respect that." The RFC he's referring to is the one that occurred on the article's talk page,
2756:
1776:] or another ArbCom case both seem reasonable at first glance), but I'll try to weigh in once the ball gets rolling.
281:
2864:
article. Iâm going to be offline for a while. Thought Iâd let you know as you did such extensive work on it. Best,
2765:
2235:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
1670:
1602:
I've come to think that the most fundamental issue underlying these various debates is a deep misunderstanding of
2699:
2687:
2278:
2236:
1838:
1761:
1725:
1570:
1537:
1448:
1376:
1337:
1085:
989:
742:
692:
645:
574:
or forget about the issue, and then this approach to sourcing will be assumed to have consensus because there is
446:
391:
You're really only just now realizing WP has a serious neutrality problem in such topic areas? Surely you jest.
233:
51:
1685:
take into account the stifling effects of a scientific community hostile to heterodox views. Could we develop a
2803:
2426:
2392:
2230:
1983:
2379:(disclosure: involved) Edit warring isn't determined by the number of reverts. There was a long discussion at
718:
213:
incompatible with the decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory. See the discussion
441:
of the attempts to raise this issue on talk pages and noticeboard have quickly been shut down (most recently
3018:
2839:
1959:
The majority of uninvolved editors in the BLPN discussion seem to agree that it is a BLP violation. *shrug*
1674:
1467:
1260:
1143:
999:
962:
908:
779:
738:
350:
241:
144:
130:
190:
The FAQ does not cite RationalWiki directly. The source for its claims about the field of psychometrics is
2078:
the years and you are probably aware that you are on a trajectory that generally ends in a permanent ban.
1851:
1847:
1634:
The institutions and scientific community must readily promote and reward the falsification of hypotheses.
1673:? How do we avoid giving undue legitimacy to all the psuedoscience that gets rightfully dismissed due to
714:
55:
know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username
3065:
2935:
2479:
2343:
399:
267:
170:
2720:
If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available
3155:
3147:
3123:
3004:
2997:
2732:
2721:
2650:
2641:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
1336:
common, as you've both given more attention to Covid related disputes than Gardenofaleph or I have. -
1121:
2703:
2388:
1974:
1862:
1739:
3131:
2861:
2380:
2172:
You are blocked for edit warring over the same content you were blocked for before. What you did
2037:
1476:
1463:
1256:
995:
958:
904:
713:
of editors trumping sources. It's such a blatant policy violation, wouldn't Arbcom address this?
639:
I recognize that any action we take runs the risk of making things worse, but they are virtually
603:
578:. Since this approach includes misrepresenting sources and using blogs as sources (as summarized
346:
237:
140:
126:
2194:
I didn't edit war though, I literally made the change once and let it be after being reverted.
1540:, ] Gardenofaleph}} see my talk p. please dont ask me for anything for a few days at least. ;
68:
3047:
2918:
2869:
2676:
2425:
Lastly, I see that I am not the only one who has observed your disruptive editing in this area
2312:, which I thought it would lead to broader acceptance and was therefore worth attempting (per
1757:
703:
552:
492:
32:
3096:
3061:
2966:
2931:
2887:
2714:
2642:
2475:
2446:
2429:
2366:
2339:
2317:
2242:
2195:
2185:
2159:
2138:
2110:
2089:
1997:
1960:
1950:
1931:
1913:
1897:
1883:
1785:
1743:
1714:
1698:
1690:
1623:
reliably generate trustworthy results, but only when two very important conditions are met:
1407:
1323:
1129:
1079:
1010:
795:
460:
425:
394:
378:
262:
185:
165:
96:
72:
3076:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2946:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
3151:
2784:
2728:
2406:
2313:
1829:
1411:
conflict between WP:FRINGE as it's currently interpreted and other policies, particularly
251:
79:
from the parody material we added. It isn't difficult to find legitimate sources (such as
2713:. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request
1742:, arguing against the notion that there is any connection between race and intelligence.
2653:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.
2082:
the very fact of being contrarian would amplify the value of your contributions here. â
56:
3073:
2943:
2825:
2180:. That you think you were right ("level heads would prevail") doesn't change the fact.
255:
47:
1697:
weight on inconvenient findings and unpopular views that come out despite hostility)?
557:
442:
28:
3127:
3069:
2939:
2799:
2710:
2667:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
2496:
2457:
2129:
2060:
1813:. To the IP editor, I'm sure you're also reading this - also have a read of that. --
1689:
guideline in the same way we have guidelines on reliable sources? Or could we update
1592:
1547:
1526:
1500:
1397:
1106:
1022:
834:
770:
681:
473:
Thanks. There are two points in particular I'd like to hear from other editors about:
154:
2158:
I don't understand how this was a violation of policy. Could you please unblock me?
2881:
2865:
2761:
2672:
2668:
1443:
1416:
1014:
699:
617:
610:
280:
There were recent discussions at both NPOVN and NORN about closely related issues.
3038:
2910:
1610:
offense!). There's little reason to trust scientists more than others in general,
1908:
wondering if there shouldn't be an even more comprehensive review of your edits.
2709:
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under
2181:
2149:
2134:
2124:
2101:
2083:
1946:
1925:
1909:
1893:
1814:
1628:
1439:
1412:
1125:
1018:
320:
158:
214:
2780:
2155:
broadly accepted. I learned my lesson and have no intention of edit warring.
1779:
I think DGG dropped a lot of wisdom in that discussion as well, especially:
1666:
scientific consensus saysânever mind a few troubling facts to the contrary.
3159:
3139:
3111:
3026:
2981:
2895:
2873:
2847:
2811:
2788:
2736:
2698:
Hello, Stonkaments. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
2680:
2630:
2500:
2483:
2461:
2437:
2400:
2347:
2325:
2203:
2189:
2167:
2142:
2118:
2093:
2064:
2045:
2005:
1990:
1968:
1954:
1939:
1917:
1901:
1817:
1793:
1769:
1751:
1733:
1706:
1693:
policy to account for this somehow (maybe some guidance to actually place
1596:
1578:
1551:
1530:
1504:
1471:
1456:
1401:
1345:
1264:
1137:
1110:
1093:
1003:
981:
966:
951:
912:
838:
803:
774:
750:
722:
707:
685:
653:
468:
454:
433:
407:
386:
354:
275:
245:
178:
148:
134:
108:
2491:
2468:
2452:
2055:
1876:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
1756:
It might be valuable for you to offer your views in the discussion here.
1587:
1563:
1542:
1521:
1495:
1392:
1330:
1101:
1072:
829:
765:
731:
676:
517:
418:
3080:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
2950:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
2694:
1880:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
784:
3057:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
2928:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
417:
of editors, that is a whole other beast (as thoughtfully explained by
315:". It's the clear consensus of the community that there is not such a
50:, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the
622:
Any additional input on these or related issues would be appreciated.
1681:
discount scientific consensus views that are unfalsifiable, and it
307:
The admin who closed the NPOVN discussion explained his reasoning
3093:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
2963:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
1945:
the BLPN discussion gives you much reason to claim this, sorry.
1658:
right. They're right in the sense that the scientific consensus
313:
If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC
63:", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL".
3083:
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
3051:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All
2953:
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
523:
60:
27:
First, I'd like to ensure you've noticed the closed discussion
2922:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
3014:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
2996:
2745:
2220:
1828:
644:
DGG) have suggestions about what ought to be done instead? -
59:, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from "
1865:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
2860:
Looks like someone sneakily removed any negative info on
2569:
Knowledge's best articles on the world's strangest things
2354:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
87:
project to discredit it was a worthwhile endeavor, but I
2374:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
3064:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2934:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2645:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
2420:
2418:
2384:
2310:
2292:
2288:
2282:
2273:
2269:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2177:
2173:
2108:
1810:
668:
579:
571:
560:
422:
371:
369:
308:
116:
2742:
Orphaned non-free image File:Ideanomics, Inc. Logo.png
2034:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou
2022:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou
1869:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
311:: "The load-bearing part of JBL's comment was this: "
2229:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
2381:
Talk:Nicholas_Wade#Wikilink_for_lab_leak_hypothesis
2775:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
1850:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
3010:Message added 06:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC). You can
562:show how in the present editing environment, the
582:), that can't be an acceptable long-term result.
851:, as he may want to be part of this discussion.
3003:Hello, Stonkaments. You have new messages at
2777:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
2771:Note that any non-free images not used in any
2637:Disambiguation link notification for August 2
2553:So no one told you life was gonna be this way
789:Of course, that still doesn't excuse editors
199:source, and which now is codified in the FAQ.
8:
2727:Thank you for your submission to Knowledge.
2529:Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money
2405:My edit was fully in line with BRD policy.
153:It's contextually important here that, per
3121:
2905:
2032:You are invited to join the discussion at
1857:During a dispute, you should first try to
2717:of the content if it meets requirements.
1084:Do you support what I'm proposing here? -
1013:against other Knowledge policies such as
1738:The usual suspects are back at it again
2537:Croatian Knowledge: capture and release
2123:Stonkaments, I don't know exactly what
101:2600:1004:B147:4751:3970:E21B:3D74:B13A
2521:Elections, Wikimania, masking and more
2410:
1780:
312:
2577:WikiProject on open proxies interview
1627:The hypotheses being studied must be
7:
3048:2022 Arbitration Committee elections
2919:2021 Arbitration Committee elections
986:That's my preferred option as well.
3032:ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
2902:ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
576:no longer anyone arguing against it
250:This is the kind of lame mess that
2593:Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed
2515:
2385:see here for a justified reversion
14:
1390:no need to ping; I'll look here.
3037:
2909:
2824:
2693:
2647:National Hansen's Disease Museum
2027:
549:The recent objections raised by
3087:and submit your choices on the
2992:SpaceX Starship NPOV discussion
2957:and submit your choices on the
3160:13:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
3140:11:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
2812:19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
2789:17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
2757:File:Ideanomics, Inc. Logo.png
2737:08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
1973:That is categorically untrue.
1:
3112:01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
3066:Knowledge arbitration process
2982:00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
2936:Knowledge arbitration process
2766:our policy for non-free media
1859:discuss controversial changes
1842:from editing for a period of
1794:19:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
1770:21:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
1752:02:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
1734:19:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
1707:01:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
392:
260:
163:
2896:19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
2886:Thanks for letting me know!
2874:17:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
2848:21:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
2700:Draft:Barbecue Hall of Fame
2688:Draft:Barbecue Hall of Fame
2585:Is WMF fundraising abusive?
2233:, who declined the request.
17:The R&I parody material
3176:
3104:MediaWiki message delivery
2974:MediaWiki message delivery
2681:05:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
2623:MediaWiki message delivery
2610:Read this Signpost in full
1597:06:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
1120:of fringe topics. We have
3027:06:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
2823:
2746:
2631:20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
2501:20:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
2484:19:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
2462:19:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
2438:07:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
2401:22:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2358:guide to appealing blocks
2348:03:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
2326:15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2204:15:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2190:15:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2168:14:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2143:14:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2119:14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2094:12:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
2065:05:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
2046:00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
2006:07:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1991:12:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
1969:23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
1955:23:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
1940:23:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
1918:23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
1902:23:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
1878:guide to appealing blocks
1852:make useful contributions
1818:20:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
1579:22:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
1491:give me a dew days please
1346:16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
1265:19:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
1138:11:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
1111:01:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
1094:23:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
1004:00:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
982:23:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
967:23:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
952:22:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
913:00:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
839:06:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
804:21:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
775:20:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
751:16:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
723:05:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
708:01:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
3101:to your user talk page.
2971:to your user talk page.
2891:
2433:
2321:
2199:
2163:
2133:to continue disrupting.
2114:
2001:
1964:
1935:
1789:
1747:
1702:
1552:04:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
1531:04:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
1505:17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
1472:19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
1457:23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
1402:06:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
1133:
799:
686:20:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
654:20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
469:14:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
464:
455:00:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
434:13:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
429:
408:10:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
387:14:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
382:
355:15:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
276:10:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
246:19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
179:11:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
149:00:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
135:23:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
109:18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
2561:Searching for Knowledge
2535:Disinformation report:
974:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich
944:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich
847:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich
3001:
2751:
2225:
1833:
3062:Arbitration Committee
3045:Hello! Voting in the
3000:
2932:Arbitration Committee
2916:Hello! Voting in the
2832:The Writer's Barnstar
2754:Thanks for uploading
2749:
2412:kind of edit warring.
2279:change block settings
2224:
1985:Tell me all about it.
1888:Your reason here ~~~~
1832:
1519:please have patience
1009:around how to weight
3005:Talk:SpaceX Starship
2669:opt-out instructions
2575:WikiProject report:
1762:Ferahgo the Assassin
1726:Ferahgo the Assassin
1638:We shouldn't expect
1571:Ferahgo the Assassin
1538:Ferahgo the Assassin
1449:Ferahgo the Assassin
1377:Ferahgo the Assassin
1338:Ferahgo the Assassin
1144:sourcing restriction
1086:Ferahgo the Assassin
990:Ferahgo the Assassin
743:Ferahgo the Assassin
739:sourcing restriction
693:Ferahgo the Assassin
646:Ferahgo the Assassin
447:Ferahgo the Assassin
234:Ferahgo the Assassin
52:Kathryn Paige Harden
2817:A barnstar for you!
2804:Firefangledfeathers
2591:Discussion report:
2559:News from the WMF:
1671:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
994:what do you think?
21:Hello Stonkaments,
3078:arbitration policy
3019:CactiStaccingCrane
3012:remove this notice
3002:
2948:arbitration policy
2862:The Metals Company
2856:The Metals Company
2840:CactiStaccingCrane
2752:
2686:Concern regarding
2659:⢠Join us at the
2226:
1867:dispute resolution
1834:
459:Sure, no problem.
3142:
3126:comment added by
3114:
2989:
2988:
2984:
2853:
2852:
2762:claim of fair use
2664:
2651:usually incorrect
2649:. Such links are
2543:Recent research:
2092:
1989:
1988:
1660:would like to say
1118:misrepresentation
522:in your comments
3167:
3102:
3100:
3041:
3015:
2972:
2970:
2913:
2906:
2885:
2828:
2821:
2820:
2748:
2697:
2654:
2643:Leprosy in Japan
2551:Traffic report:
2519:News and notes:
2472:
2371:
2365:
2298:
2296:
2285:
2267:
2265:deleted contribs
2223:
2153:
2105:
2088:
2043:
2040:
2031:
2030:
1982:
1981:
1979:
1929:
1891:
1718:
1687:Reliable Science
1675:WP:Academic bias
1567:
1334:
1327:
1201:to do it either.
1083:
1076:
993:
850:
735:
696:
621:
614:
607:
559:and Stonkaments
556:
521:
496:
406:
274:
189:
177:
3175:
3174:
3170:
3169:
3168:
3166:
3165:
3164:
3117:
3116:
3094:
3042:
3034:
3016:
3009:
2994:
2964:
2904:
2879:
2858:
2819:
2796:
2779:. Thank you. --
2744:
2691:
2661:DPL WikiProject
2639:
2634:
2633:
2605:
2514:
2466:
2369:
2363:
2362:, then use the
2351:
2329:
2286:
2276:
2262:
2245:
2237:blocking policy
2221:
2176:, you also did
2147:
2099:
2085:Charles Stewart
2075:
2041:
2038:
2028:
2025:
1975:
1923:
1905:
1904:
1881:
1874:
1871:page protection
1855:
1826:
1806:
1782:preconceptions.
1712:
1561:
1328:
1321:
1077:
1070:
987:
844:
791:misrepresenting
729:
690:
615:
608:
601:
550:
515:
490:
183:
31:, initiated by
19:
12:
11:
5:
3173:
3171:
3163:
3162:
3085:the candidates
3054:eligible users
3043:
3036:
3035:
3033:
3030:
3008:
2995:
2993:
2990:
2987:
2986:
2955:the candidates
2925:eligible users
2914:
2903:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2857:
2854:
2851:
2850:
2835:
2834:
2829:
2818:
2815:
2795:
2792:
2743:
2740:
2690:
2684:
2638:
2635:
2606:
2604:
2603:
2596:
2595:
2588:
2587:
2580:
2579:
2572:
2571:
2564:
2563:
2556:
2555:
2548:
2547:
2540:
2539:
2532:
2531:
2527:In the media:
2524:
2523:
2516:
2513:
2512:: 27 June 2021
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2486:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2423:
2414:
2389:RandomCanadian
2352:
2336:
2332:Decline reason
2307:
2303:Request reason
2300:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2156:
2074:
2073:Time to choose
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2024:
2020:Discussion at
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
1875:
1856:
1836:You have been
1835:
1827:
1825:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1777:
1736:
1721:
1720:
1636:
1635:
1632:
1600:
1599:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1517:
1508:
1507:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1113:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
787:
727:
726:
725:
715:Jacques Street
671:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
568:
547:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
438:
437:
436:
374:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
137:
121:
120:
95:Incidentally,
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3172:
3161:
3157:
3153:
3149:
3148:WP:Canvassing
3145:
3144:
3143:
3141:
3137:
3133:
3129:
3125:
3115:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3098:
3092:
3091:
3086:
3081:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3063:
3058:
3056:
3055:
3050:
3049:
3040:
3031:
3029:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3013:
3006:
2999:
2991:
2985:
2983:
2979:
2975:
2968:
2962:
2961:
2956:
2951:
2949:
2945:
2941:
2937:
2933:
2927:
2926:
2921:
2920:
2915:
2912:
2908:
2907:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2889:
2883:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2855:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2836:
2833:
2830:
2827:
2822:
2816:
2814:
2813:
2809:
2805:
2801:
2800:Nicholas Wade
2793:
2791:
2790:
2786:
2782:
2778:
2774:
2769:
2767:
2763:
2759:
2758:
2741:
2739:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2725:
2723:
2718:
2716:
2712:
2707:
2705:
2704:article space
2701:
2696:
2689:
2685:
2683:
2682:
2678:
2674:
2670:
2665:
2662:
2658:
2652:
2648:
2644:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2616:
2612:
2611:
2602:
2598:
2597:
2594:
2590:
2589:
2586:
2582:
2581:
2578:
2574:
2573:
2570:
2566:
2565:
2562:
2558:
2557:
2554:
2550:
2549:
2546:
2542:
2541:
2538:
2534:
2533:
2530:
2526:
2525:
2522:
2518:
2517:
2511:
2508:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2493:
2487:
2485:
2481:
2477:
2470:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2454:
2448:
2445:
2444:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2424:
2421:
2419:
2415:
2413:
2408:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2368:
2361:
2359:
2350:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2338:Per below. â
2335:
2333:
2328:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2306:
2304:
2299:
2294:
2290:
2284:
2280:
2275:
2271:
2266:
2261:
2257:
2256:global blocks
2253:
2252:active blocks
2249:
2244:
2240:
2238:
2234:
2232:
2231:administrator
2207:
2206:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2151:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2131:
2130:Nicholas Wade
2126:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2109:
2103:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2086:
2079:
2072:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2057:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2044:
2035:
2023:
2019:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1980:
1978:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1927:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1889:
1885:
1879:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1831:
1823:
1819:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1803:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1775:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1716:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1667:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1656:directionally
1652:
1650:
1646:
1641:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1622:
1618:
1613:
1607:
1605:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1565:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1523:
1518:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1492:
1487:
1478:
1477:Gardenofaleph
1475:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1464:Gardenofaleph
1460:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1418:
1414:
1409:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1332:
1325:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1257:Gardenofaleph
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1122:WP:FRINGE/ALT
1119:
1114:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1081:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:Gardenofaleph
991:
985:
984:
983:
979:
975:
970:
969:
968:
964:
960:
959:Gardenofaleph
955:
954:
953:
949:
945:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
914:
910:
906:
905:Gardenofaleph
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
848:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
831:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
805:
801:
797:
792:
788:
785:
781:
778:
777:
776:
772:
768:
767:
761:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
748:
744:
740:
733:
728:
724:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
694:
689:
688:
687:
683:
679:
678:
672:
669:
665:
664:
655:
651:
647:
642:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
619:
612:
605:
604:Gardenofaleph
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
554:
548:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
525:
519:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
494:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
444:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:
416:
411:
410:
409:
404:
401:
398:
397:
390:
389:
388:
384:
380:
375:
372:
370:
366:
356:
352:
348:
347:Gardenofaleph
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
286:noticeboards.
284:
282:
279:
278:
277:
272:
269:
266:
265:
257:
253:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
238:Gardenofaleph
235:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
197:
193:
187:
182:
181:
180:
175:
172:
169:
168:
160:
156:
152:
151:
150:
146:
142:
141:Gardenofaleph
138:
136:
132:
128:
127:Gardenofaleph
123:
122:
118:
113:
112:
111:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
90:
84:
82:
78:
74:
70:
64:
62:
58:
53:
49:
45:
40:
36:
34:
30:
25:
22:
16:
3122:â Preceding
3118:
3088:
3082:
3059:
3052:
3046:
3044:
3017:
2958:
2952:
2929:
2923:
2917:
2859:
2831:
2797:
2794:Wade warring
2772:
2770:
2755:
2753:
2726:
2719:
2715:userfication
2708:
2692:
2666:
2640:
2608:
2510:The Signpost
2509:
2490:
2451:
2373:
2355:
2353:
2337:
2331:
2330:
2308:
2302:
2301:
2274:creation log
2241:
2228:
2227:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2054:
2026:
1984:
1977:ááááážááąPants
1976:
1906:
1887:
1848:edit warring
1843:
1837:
1694:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1668:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1653:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1637:
1620:
1616:
1611:
1608:
1603:
1601:
1586:
1560:
1541:
1520:
1494:
1490:
1391:
1117:
1100:
828:
790:
783:peer-review"
764:
759:
675:
640:
563:
553:Sesquivalent
493:Berchanhimez
414:
395:
316:
263:
195:
166:
94:
88:
85:
76:
65:
41:
37:
33:Sesquivalent
26:
23:
20:
3090:voting page
2960:voting page
2888:Stonkaments
2619:Unsubscribe
2615:Single-page
2476:Daniel Case
2447:Daniel Case
2430:Stonkaments
2340:Daniel Case
2318:Stonkaments
2243:Stonkaments
2196:Stonkaments
2160:Stonkaments
2111:Stonkaments
1998:Stonkaments
1961:Stonkaments
1932:Stonkaments
1786:Stonkaments
1744:Stonkaments
1715:Stonkaments
1699:Stonkaments
1629:falsifiable
1479:, see reply
1324:Stonkaments
1130:Stonkaments
1080:Stonkaments
796:Stonkaments
461:Stonkaments
426:Stonkaments
396:SMcCandlish
379:Stonkaments
317:fundamental
264:SMcCandlish
186:SMcCandlish
167:SMcCandlish
97:SMcCandlish
77:exclusively
3152:NightHeron
3074:topic bans
2944:topic bans
2729:FireflyBot
2671:. Thanks,
2655:(Read the
2599:Obituary:
2270:filter log
2039:Shibboleth
780:This essay
641:guaranteed
192:this paper
3070:site bans
2940:site bans
2356:read the
2289:checkuser
2248:block log
1863:consensus
1861:and seek
1824:June 2021
1804:ip editor
1691:WP:FRINGE
1408:WP:FRINGE
1011:WP:FRINGE
564:substance
259:editors.
3136:contribs
3128:Aldengro
3124:unsigned
2773:articles
2567:Humour:
2407:WP:CYCLE
2397:contribs
2314:WP:CYCLE
2260:contribs
1886:|reason=
1844:60 hours
843:Pinging
415:majority
252:WP:NPOVN
125:Twitter.
81:this one
3097:NoACEMM
2967:NoACEMM
2882:Thriley
2866:Thriley
2711:CSD G13
2673:DPL bot
2601:SarahSV
2583:Forum:
2367:unblock
2283:unblock
1884:unblock
1839:blocked
1649:science
1640:science
1604:science
700:Nerd271
618:Bonewah
611:Nerd271
572:give up
421:here:
256:WP:NORN
254:and/or
2182:Drmies
2150:Drmies
2135:Drmies
2125:Chalst
2102:Chalst
2090:(talk)
1947:Drmies
1926:Drmies
1910:Drmies
1894:Drmies
1815:zzuuzz
1683:should
1679:should
1664:actual
1645:method
1612:except
1023:WP:BLP
345:them.
196:exists
155:WP:UGC
61:Jensen
57:Kfotfo
3146:From
2781:B-bot
2497:talk
2458:talk
2360:first
2061:talk
1593:talk
1548:talk
1527:talk
1501:talk
1444:WP:RS
1417:WP:RS
1398:talk
1147:case.
1107:talk
1015:WP:RS
835:talk
771:talk
682:talk
498:that?
89:never
3156:talk
3132:talk
3108:talk
3060:The
3023:talk
2978:talk
2930:The
2892:talk
2870:talk
2844:talk
2808:talk
2785:talk
2733:talk
2722:here
2677:talk
2627:talk
2480:talk
2434:talk
2417:well
2393:talk
2344:talk
2322:talk
2200:talk
2186:talk
2178:here
2174:here
2164:talk
2139:talk
2115:talk
2002:talk
1965:talk
1951:talk
1936:talk
1914:talk
1898:talk
1846:for
1811:here
1790:talk
1766:talk
1748:talk
1740:here
1730:talk
1703:talk
1695:more
1621:does
1619:and
1575:talk
1468:talk
1453:talk
1442:and
1440:WP:V
1415:and
1413:WP:V
1342:talk
1261:talk
1134:talk
1126:WP:V
1124:and
1090:talk
1021:and
1019:WP:V
1000:talk
978:talk
963:talk
948:talk
909:talk
903:up.
800:talk
760:this
747:talk
719:talk
704:talk
650:talk
580:here
524:here
465:talk
451:talk
443:here
430:talk
383:talk
351:talk
309:here
242:talk
215:here
159:WP:V
145:talk
131:talk
117:here
105:talk
73:this
71:and
69:this
48:here
46:and
44:here
29:here
2768:).
2657:FAQ
2492:DGG
2469:DGG
2453:DGG
2399:)
2293:log
2239:).
2056:DGG
2042:ink
2036:.
1892:.
1617:can
1588:DGG
1564:DGG
1543:DGG
1522:DGG
1496:DGG
1493:!!
1393:DGG
1331:DGG
1102:DGG
1073:DGG
830:DGG
766:DGG
732:DGG
677:DGG
518:DGG
419:DGG
405:đź
273:đź
176:đź
3158:)
3138:)
3134:â˘
3110:)
3099:}}
3095:{{
3072:,
3025:)
2980:)
2969:}}
2965:{{
2942:,
2894:)
2872:)
2846:)
2810:)
2787:)
2735:)
2724:.
2706:.
2679:)
2663:.)
2629:)
2621:*
2617:*
2613:*
2607:*
2499:)
2482:)
2460:)
2436:)
2428:.
2409::
2395:/
2387:.
2370:}}
2364:{{
2346:)
2334::
2324:)
2305::
2287:â˘
2281:â˘
2277:â˘
2272:â˘
2268:â˘
2263:â˘
2258:â˘
2254:â˘
2250:â˘
2202:)
2188:)
2166:)
2141:)
2117:)
2063:)
2004:)
1967:)
1953:)
1938:)
1916:)
1900:)
1890:}}
1882:{{
1854:.
1792:)
1768:)
1750:)
1732:)
1705:)
1651:.
1595:)
1577:)
1550:)
1529:)
1503:)
1470:)
1455:)
1400:)
1344:)
1263:)
1136:)
1109:)
1092:)
1017:,
1002:)
980:)
965:)
950:)
911:)
837:)
802:)
773:)
749:)
721:)
706:)
684:)
652:)
467:)
453:)
432:)
393:â
385:)
353:)
261:â
244:)
236:.
164:â
147:)
133:)
107:)
3154:(
3130:(
3106:(
3021:(
3007:.
2976:(
2890:(
2884::
2880:@
2868:(
2842:(
2806:(
2783:(
2750:â
2731:(
2675:(
2625:(
2495:(
2478:(
2471::
2467:@
2456:(
2432:(
2391:(
2342:(
2320:(
2297:)
2295:)
2291:(
2246:(
2198:(
2184:(
2162:(
2152::
2148:@
2137:(
2113:(
2104::
2100:@
2059:(
2000:(
1963:(
1949:(
1934:(
1928::
1924:@
1912:(
1896:(
1873:.
1788:(
1764:(
1746:(
1728:(
1717::
1713:@
1701:(
1631:.
1591:(
1573:(
1569:-
1566::
1562:@
1546:(
1525:(
1499:(
1466:(
1451:(
1447:-
1419:.
1396:(
1340:(
1333::
1329:@
1326::
1322:@
1259:(
1132:(
1105:(
1088:(
1082::
1078:@
1075::
1071:@
998:(
992::
988:@
976:(
961:(
946:(
907:(
849::
845:@
833:(
798:(
769:(
745:(
734::
730:@
717:(
702:(
695::
691:@
680:(
670:.
648:(
620::
616:@
613::
609:@
606::
602:@
555::
551:@
520::
516:@
495::
491:@
463:(
449:(
428:(
403:¢
400:â
381:(
349:(
271:¢
268:â
240:(
188::
184:@
174:¢
171:â
143:(
129:(
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.