User talk:Ferahgo the Assassin/Archive 1

Working on recreating “Race and crime”.
I’m posting this comment on the discussion pages of several users who were involved in editing the article Race and crime before it was merged into Anthropological criminology, to let all of you know that I’m working on recreating the Race and crime article. My current draft for it can be found here. I would appreciate help from any of you with two things related to this:

1: RegentsPark, the admin who protected the redirect from Race and crime to Anthropological criminology, has suggested that the statistical information in this article should be better-integrated into the portion of it that discusses how these statistics can be interpreted. I would appreciate help with improving this aspect of the article, or any other aspects of it that you think could be improved.

2: RegentsPark has let me know here that he won’t be willing to unprotect the article himself, no matter how much it’s improved, so if I would like it to be unprotected I should propose this at WP:RFPP. I’ve proposed there that it be unprotected, but the admin who responded (User:Camaron) stated that without RegentsPark’s approval, I would need to first obtain a consensus that the article should be recreated. If you think the article does not require any additional improvements, and is good enough to be recreated in its current state, I would appreciate you making your opinion about this known on the draft’s discussion page, so that we can begin to create a consensus for this.

Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
Thanks for your decision to get involved in this article. If you feel like continuing to participate in the discussion there, that would be much appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your real life connection to people you are commenting about
Do you think you should make your real life connection to Captain Occam clear when commenting about him? Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's excessive to mention it in every comment, but I don't try to keep it a secret and will answer honestly if asked. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's one thing that some editors have the (IMHO) honesty to register and contribute as themselves in real life, and such information is available. It's another when personal detail, whether otherwise accessible or not, is used to smear editors with derisive speculations. As one who has been called a "fascist Eurotrash faggot" owing directly to WP's violation of my privacy, I sympathize, but until WP demonstrates it cares more about privacy and respect for individuals than WP and the opportunity for drama-mongering, the situation will not change. IMHO, as long as dealing with such issues is left in the hands of individuals not affiliated with the WMF, WP cares not at all unless it is under direct legal threat. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pakasuchus
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
A thread concerning your involvement in the recent arbitration of the race and intelligence dispute has been started here Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Balaur bondoc
Hey! no worries, don't have this one on the agenda :) Look forward to seeing your rendition! MMartyniuk (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Artwork
Hey, cool artwork you're uploading! If you're interested, you can post it here for review, so that any technical inaccuracies may be pointed out, if there are any that is, heh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's an awesome resource, I'll be sure to check it out next time I draw something for Wikipedia (this one has already gone to press so to speak, so it wouldn't benefit from much at this point). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On advice
Hope you didn't find it too depressing. (!) Best, P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 22:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I appreciate your input and advice a great deal. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Balaur
Thanks for contributing the Balaur illustration! Nice! Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no plans to do a Balaur scale at the moment, have at it! MMartyniuk (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy
Hi, I made a query about the use of sources in this article at WP:NOR/N.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

blanket reverts
It's not clear to me why you're all of a sudden reverting many of the R/I related edits I've recently made. If you've got a problem with the edits, it might help to bring them to the talk page instead. aprock (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted two of your edits, I'm not sure if that counts as "many." I'm getting a sense now of how things work on these articles, especially from seeing how you handled removing Victor's charts on R&I. Based on BRD policy everything I'm doing is totally normal.


 * Also, I did bring both of the reversions up in detail on the talk pages, if you'd like to discuss them there. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you review the removal of the images, you'll see that they were not removed until they had been discussed multiple times with several editors weight in, and most of them agreeing that they were either not appropriate or represented undue weight. If you'd like to take a similar tack, you're welcome to.  Your tracking down of my edits, reverting first, then asking questions later seems a bit antithetical to the sort of approach I took, and one that seems a bit brash given the recent warnings you've been given. aprock (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that when someone disagrees with a controversial piece of content, it's normal to remove it until a consensus has been reached about it.


 * I didn't mean to give the impression I was tracking down your edits. These two reverts I just made were things that have been bothering me for a while. I originally brought them up with Victor but got in trouble for that, and the ensuing arb enforcement thread indicated that I ought to have reverted them myself instead of trying to get anyone else to. The reason I waited until now is because I needed some time to familiarize myself with the normal type of conduct on these articles. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the specifics of your reverts on the talk page. Reviewing  and, I come away with a different understanding than you do. aprock (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being more clear about your concerns in the talk pages, and the constructive edits. There are a couple of things I'd like to address just to make sure we're on the same page. First, there are two ways of addressing problems we see in articles. We can either edit them directly, or revert problematic edits. If at all possible we should try and take the edit approach, improving on the problems we see, and avoid reverting. Second, if there is a specific policy problem, by bringing it up on the talk page first, and waiting some period of time for feedback before making changes, we can often clarify what the exact problem is, and the best way to address it. aprock (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment
A thread concerning your involvement in the recent arbitration of the race and intelligence dispute has been started here Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Race and biomedicine
I've inserted the draft into the article - if nothing else it'll at least reopen the discussion.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice (ArbCom Amendment Case Notice)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbcom_amendment_case. Thank you.

I didn't open this, but I see that the custom is for each user to notify each other user he or she mentions (a courtesy not always extended to me in the past, but I'll try to follow that protocol here). Best wishes for good health and much success in your personal life. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban
Pursuant to WP:SHARE, I am formally invoking the discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. So long as remedy #8 is in effect, you are to edit as if that sanction also applies to you. Instructions on how to appeal this ban, should you wish to do so, can be found here. NW ( Talk ) 01:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note - ArbCom is unlikely to topic ban another editor on the Amendment request. If you believe that someone's editing is inappropriate, please make a report at the enforcement board where admins can review and decide if sanctions are warranted. Shell   babelfish 12:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, it's okay for me to do that even when I'm topic banned? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the occasional report doesn't pose a problem. However, please be aware that if you seem to be spending a great deal of time monitoring the topic area and repeatedly reporting people, you may be asked to stop that as well.  This is a great opportunity to spend some time in other areas of Wikipedia and discover whether you enjoy editing here; please spend that time wisely. Shell   babelfish 20:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom request for clarification
Please take note of WP:RFAR. Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Origin of Birds
Hello, Ferahgo;

I will keep an eye out for additional references, although I tend to work somewhat distant from birds on the family tree. J. Spencer (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Mathsci (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating your topic ban by editing Henry Fairfield Osborn. This block is placed as an Arbitration enforcement action. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell Talk 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The paperwork for that is now complete. Courcelles 08:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My evaluation of the AE discussion is that:
 * 1) You were in violation of your topic ban, therefore a block was not inappropriate, however
 * 2) 72 hours may have been a little too long;
 * Accordingly, I've reduced the duration to 24 hours from the time of imposition, which, by my calculations, leaves you with about 3 and a half hours left. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ferahgo the Assassin
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : 72 hour block, imposed at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, logged at ARBR%26I


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
As far as I knew, this article was not covered by my topic ban. I actually did not notice that this article discussed race and intelligence until after Mathsci pointed this out in the AE thread - if you look at the diff of my initial statement there, I said I thought the article did not mention intelligence at all. After Mathsci mentioned this I updated my comment, stating in my edit summary that I hadn't previously noticed the article's single sentence which referred to this. As is evident from my contribs, I regularly edit paleontology articles, and I noticed the edit which I reverted because most articles about well-known paleontologists are on my watchlist. I don't think that a single sentence discussing race and intelligence should necessarily make this a "race and intelligence related article" which I'm therefore not allowed to edit. And if it does, then this was an honest mistake on my part, because I didn't notice this sentence in the article until after Mathsci pointed it out.

If I had been warned prior to this block that the article was covered by my topic ban, I would not have made another attempt to edit it (I made a second edit to the article while the AE thread was open, but at that point no one other than Mathsci was expressing an opinion that my topic ban covered this article). Since I have had no prior blocks for any reason, and it was not completely clear that my topic ban covered this article, the lack of a warning seems unusual. I'm also concerned by the lack of discussion among admins prior to the block. The AE thread was open for less than three hours before I was blocked, and MastCell blocked me before any other uninvolved admins had commented there. Of the other editors commenting in that thread, no one else felt that a block was an appropriate result. I don't think it's appropriate that on my first offense, I should be blocked for 72 hours with no warning and no discussion among uninvolved admins.

I think that the appropriate response in this case is a warning, and I would like my block to be replaced with that. If I am unblocked and warned that the Henry Fairfield Osborn article is covered by my topic ban, I will not attempt to edit it again as long as I remain banned from race and intelligence articles.

Result of the appeal by Ferahgo the Assassin

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Wider topic ban from Race and Intelligence
Hello Ferahgo the Assassin. Please see the new restriction here. You have several options for appeal. You can ask me directly to lift the ban, you can make a request at WP:Arbitration enforcement, or you can contact the Arbitration Committee. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)