User talk:173.246.210.93

Introduction to contentious topics
Generalrelative (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Warning
I have removed your outing on Generalrelative's page. If you harass them (or anybody else) again, you will be blocked. Bishonen &#124; tålk 06:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC).

Blocked
What are you talking about at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist) when you say the consensus is that racial hereditarian authors are inherently fringe or unreliable, based on a bunch of diffs all concerning edits by one particular editor? It doesn't make any sense, and yet you've been seriously edit warring to restore your comment whenever it's removed. You're trolling, and continuing your harassment of that editor. You have been blocked for a month. When you return, you'd better leave your target alone. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC).
 * All of these edits have stood for the past year, so they are supported by consensus per WP:IMPLICIT. Also, the removals from the Recent human evolution were supported in this discussion. Whether you keep me blocked is up to you, but I would like you to acknowledge that I've accurately described this situation. 173.246.210.93 (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, let me clarify a little more about why I was making that argument. I wasn't trolling. I think it is utterly ridiculous that there is apparently a consensus for this, but that is what the current consensus appears to be, and I'd like other editors to acknowledge that. This relates to the point I made here. The consensus to classify "racial hereditarianism" as a fringe theory is producing outcomes that are of dubious compatibility with Wikipedia's policies, but there hasn't been much discussion about the full meaning of this decision, in areas such as the baby boomers or cadborosaurus articles. I made that comment because I think the true meaning of the current consensus needs to be understood more fully. 173.246.210.93 (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So you weren't "trolling", merely indulging in WP:STRAWSOCK? Got it. I have nothing else to say. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC).
 * No, WP:STRAWSOCK describes presenting a deliberately false or irrational argument. What I've said is, as far as I can tell, a completely accurate summary of what the current consensus means. As long as that consensus exists, it's reasonable to expect it to be acknowledged and followed in a consistent manner, and my personal feelings about it are irrelevant to that requirement.


 * Could you please acknowledge my explanation of why I think my summary was accurate, and why my comment that you blocked me for didn't have the meaning that you thought it did? If you aren't willing to, that's okay too. 173.246.210.93 (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have nothing else to say except that I forgot to tell you how to appeal the block to an uninvolved admin, on the rather remote supposition that you don't already know. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: . Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC).