User talk:Stan Giesbrecht/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Stan Giesbrecht, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

May 2016
Your recent editing history at Charles Darwin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing. You have repeatedly removed sources calling them "flawed" and "inaccurate"; even though nobody has agreed with you about that on the talkpage. Volunteer Marek's edit summary here is correct: you need to get consensus for your removals, not make them and then suggest WP:CONSENSUS requires a discussion to reinstate them. You have continued the disruptive and unsupported editing, which necessitated protection of On the Origin of Species in July. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

July 2016: warning
Hi. Please stop filling up Talk:On the Origin of Species and Talk:The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex with personal commentary on other editors, such as "I knew that attempting to correct these inaccuracies would generate a lot of noise from the race-is-just-a-myth crowd", or "Dave, the only thing I’m disrupting here is your WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. I am impressed by your commitment to the Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM, although your openness and honesty leave something to be desired (just like Soapy Sam)". You persistently refer to Dave Souza as "the WP:OWNER" (=i.e., the owner of the article, a serious accusation with no evidence), and to people who disagree with you as "the Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM". You have accused Dave Souza and Volunteer Marek of "vandalism" in edit summaries. These things are all completely unacceptable. You have been repeatedly exhorted to improve your tone and desist from personal remarks. You have edit warred against several editors on On the Origin of Species, forcing it to be protected from editing for two weeks. The idea of the protection is that people will hopefully find consensus through constructive discussion on talk during it; please respect this process by commenting on content only. See also WP:REHASH: you're digressing and repeating yourself on Talk:On the Origin of Species to the point of excluding uninvolved editors. You don't seem to take on the comments and advice of experienced editors at all; I noticed that when Johnuniq asked "What chance do you think there is that any uninvolved editors would want to read the above?" (something I'm also wondering), you responded only indirectly, and with the most pointed personal remarks yet. If you continue making personal remarks, or if you resume edit warring on the article after the protection expires, you will be blocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC).


 * 1. Of course I understand that this conversation about what Charles Darwin said about race is difficult for everyone, but you are very very wrong about one thing: there is an abundance of evidence of WP:OWNERSHIP here, with a very dominant editor, as described in multiple-editor ownership, being robustly supported by an influential tag team, who happily revert my edits but won’t engage in discussions on the talk page as required under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR.
 * 2. When I started editing Wikipedia 8 months ago, Dave Souza had posted to the Charles Darwin wiki page that Darwin did not perceive racial inferiority: here and here. After being stonewalled on the talk page, I removed these false claims which Dave promptly reverted, falsely stating in the edit summary that the claims were supported by Janet Browne.  At this point I received some much appreciated help (thanks YoPienso!) on the talk page and I was successful in removing the one WP:BULLSHIT claim (which was simply synthesized from the fact that Darwin had a black tutor, like saying Hitler wasn’t racist because he had a Japanese friend).  Dave, however, continued to stonewall in the most egregious fashion on the talk page to protect the other claim, even though it was entirely his own original research (see discussion).  I had to hash, WP:REHASH, and re-rehash the evidence and arguments before I was finally successful at removing the other one.  Even then, it was only a few weeks later that Dave tried again, falsely claiming that Darwin thought the races were “fully equal” (and again this was entirely his own synthesis) at which point things got a little rowdy.
 * 3. The bedrock foundation of any encyclopedia is its source information and consequently it is of utmost importance (and Wikipedia policy) that sources here are reliable. I know that people here are very attached to some sources that I have been criticizing, but they absolutely must be critically analyzed, no matter how near and dear these authors are.  I am willing to go to the mat on any citation to a passage that is hopelessly vague, ambiguous, and/or false, especially if such vagueness, ambiguity, or bullshit is being exploited to cloud reality.
 * 4. Wikipedia draws a distinction between WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:STEWARDSHIP. Those engaged in stewardship work to provide stability by maintaining accurate posts, but also engage available evidence to correct and otherwise improve inaccurate and/or misleading claims, not arbitrarily dismiss inconvenient evidence and edit-war to establish and maintain a false narrative. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * At Talk:On the Origin of Species, you addressed this comment towards another editor: "you are shooting out of both ends with your arguments", with similar in the edit summary (diff). How is a comment like that compatible with the warning delivered by Bishonen above?
 * What about this comment which includes "is complete and total bullshit" and "It is your WP:BULLSHIT that will “mislead the modern reader”"?
 * Regarding your edit of the article: the edit summary is similarly unhelpful: "WP:CONSENSUS requires a discussion; there is only WP:OWNERSHIP here. The WP:CENSORSHIP is sad, but… The inaccurate sources, however, critically undermine this great project and really have to go."
 * How could CONSENSUS apply to your edit when it appears you have no support, but have been opposed by multiple editors? The article talk page has several explanations that WP:RSN is the correct place to question the reliability of a source if not satisfied with the opinions of others at the article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. I’m sorry that it took me so long to gather my thoughts to respond to your questions, which I did in sequence and then have 2 questions for you.
 * 2. The reason I pointed out that the arguments from a single editor were shooting both ways was because this will prevent me from reaching a consensus with this editor no matter what position I take. If I say A is correct, then it contradicts his point B, and if I say B is correct, then it contradicts A. This needs to be clarified to comply with Bishonen’s instruction to “find consensus through constructive discussion on talk”.
 * 3. Perhaps my use of the adjectives “complete and utter” was a bit strong, but the claim that Wikipedia prohibits the use of primary sources is bullshit, and thankfully, this was acknowledged in the following post, but I am saddened and extremely frustrated that you are more upset at calling a spade a WP:SPADE than the misrepresentation itself.
 * 4. Geoffrey Hodgson’s book on p.17 claims that OTOOS never explicitly refers to human races when, in fact, Darwin definitely does so in his book several times, including on p.199 where he suggests that sexual selection was important for the evolution of the human races. A citation to this WP:BULLSHIT is sure to mislead Wikipedia’s readers and damage the reliability of Wikipedia.
 * 5. With respect to my edit summary you quote, Wikipedia is to be comprehensive, and Darwin’s speculation on the relationship between human races in OTOOS is certainly notable, so I wanted it reported and was hoping to have a proper discussion about it, but getting the WP:TAGTEAM to engage in substantive discussions was harder than getting blood from a  turnip. While the WP:CENSORSHIP on this point is sad, it’s not going to change overnight so I will WP:LETGO, and focus on more important issues, such as violations of WP:RS.
 * 6. I have already discussed the differences between WP:CONSENSUS and Multiple-editor ownership many times, including my post above, this post (where you proudly responded with WP:ICANTHEARYOU), and my post to you (which got a tag team response). To briefly summarize, Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing, requiring a proper discussion on all legitimate issues to achieve CONSENSUS, something the WP:TAGTEAM has not engaged in. This is especially problematic here given that the WP:BURDEN rests on the party[ies] adding and/or restoring material. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Questions for Johnuniq

 * 7. John, you have restored the Hodgson (talk page discussion) and TalkOrigins (talk page discussion) citations, here and here, so WP:BRD applies. Please answer these questions:


 * (A): The Hodgson p.17 citation states that “the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all.” Do you think this particular claim is accurate or not? (hint, see para.4 above)


 * (B): The TalkOrigins CA005.2 citation has been claimed to only refer to the title of OTOOS and that “it isn't a source for usage elsewhere in the book” yet also claimed that the passage is saying that “the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans.” Given this confusion, please tell me: Do you think that the comments on Darwin’s use of race in this passage refer exclusively to the title of OTOOS or do you think they refer to the whole book?


 * Thank you. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not motivated to read through defensive parrying laden with links. If you have something to say about article content, without repeating points that have recently been settled, please start a new section at the article talk page with an actionable proposal, and without mentioning other editors. There is no justification possible for the points raised in my 12 August 2016 comment above—my suggestion would be to drop that line and forget the history. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. RE: “I am not motivated to read through defensive parrying…”: I’m sorry for this delay, but I have to reply, because your response is astounding. You come onto my talk page to attack me, and I’m not supposed to respond??! No surprise, of course, because you have attacked me many times simply for challenging the PC narrative here.  You don’t want to read my “defensive parrying”? Then why attack me on my talk page??? (ROLLING EYES!) But, whatever.  You’ve told me many times to focus on content, so fine, let’s focus on that. A citation on the On the Origin of Species article links to the claim that Darwin didn’t refer to human races in OTOOS. I say this claim is bullshit. This dispute needs to be dealt with directly, with actual facts and not simply red herrings. You restored this disputed content which places a WP:BURDEN on you to defend whatever you post back into the article. If you think I am wrong: if you think Hodgson’s claim is accurate, then you need to say so, because no one else has said the claim is accurate, and if no one does, it needs to be removed.


 * 2. RE: “my suggestion would be to drop that line”: I have taken some time to review your editing on articles about Charles Darwin. You mostly play defense for one dominant editor and love to run interference to anyone who questions the established narrative. You started attacking me 4 days after I started editing Wikipedia last December, which I describe more below (click ‘show’ to expand it). All you do is defend the party line; I don’t think you ever responded to anything I said in good faith. In the past, you usually ignored the real issue at hand, and would give “advise” on some irrelevant topic. The issue here and now is whether or not Darwin explicitly referred to humans in OTOOS. I have been pushing off this discussion for way too long. I know how squeamish you are about what Darwin said about race and I also know how many powerful friends you have here to back you up, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a propaganda piece (Wikipedia’s First Pillar), so as long as such bullshit is present, it would be an abdication of my responsibilities to simply “move forward” just because you are not comfortable with what Darwin really said.


 * 3. WP:DR states that talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia and includes Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement (top right). John, you are supposed to stay in the top 3 sections there, yet have been operating in the yellow (criticizing my tone) and orange (ad hominem), so please stay in the grey, purple, or cyan. Please answer the question in the last paragraph!

4A. I can see why you want the history forgotten, as you have a long pattern of simply defending the sanctioned narrative and the one dominant editor driving this narrative. This part is not directly relevant to the question of whether Darwin referred to human races in OTOOS, which is why it is collapsed, but the context is important, which is why it’s here. I became aware last year of some major inaccuracies on Wikipedia to the reporting of Charles Darwin and his works. When I finally got the courage to start editing during my Christmas break, you responded to my 13th edit and have been trying to frustrate my efforts to improve honest and accuracy here ever since.

4B. The (then current) article on Charles Darwin claimed that “Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior” (footnote VI) and that he didn’t see any “racial inferiority” in the Fuegians.(subsection Voyage of the Beagle) These claims are utterly false and in order to prevent me from changing this left-wing “truth”, you told me that they couldn’t be removed “unless based on scholarly analysis by reliable secondary sources”, and you doubled down the next day claiming that “secondary sources … are the only thing that will receive attention here”. Well, secondary sources were provided, confirming that Darwin stated/believed/claimed that the lower so-called savage races were inferior to the higher so-called civilized races, here and here. The latter post pointed out that Adrian Desmond and James R Moore had specifically written about Darwin that “He thought blacks inferior”. So now that you had the secondary sources that you requested, did you help correct the article??? No, you disappeared from sight, while your buddy kept on his egregious stonewalling, saying that “it's a bit complex” and coming up with all kinds of WP:SYNTH about this and that (including something about William Rathbone Greg), then more synthesis (some nonsense about Charles Lyell) and then yet more synthesis (something about Robert FitzRoy and polygenism) before I could finally remove this false claim, at which point DS acknowledged that his claim had been his own WP:SYNTH all along and was not something that Browne had even said.

4C. Although the original synthesis that Darwin didn’t see racial inferiority was finally removed, DS wasn’t done with his left-wing propaganda just yet. A month later he tried again, here, and especially here where he posted that “Darwin [believed] that black people were fully equal” citing Desmond and Moore. Darwin was an abolitionist, as the passage stated, but the post was both WP:SYNTH and also completely and utterly false. In fact, Desmond and Moore had explicitly written that “[Darwin] thought blacks inferior” (as DS had acknowledged). When I reverted this, you saw red and restored said bullshit. You didn’t care that it was false, you didn’t care about Wikipedia’s First Pillar (to build an encyclopedia), demonstrating that you are basically acting as a meatpuppet here.

4D. Another dispute you got involved in is Janet Browne’s claim that Darwin only ever alluded to human origins one time in OTOOS, from p.60, Power of Place, 2002. When I pointed out that there was another such allusion on p.199 (see para.5 below), I was attacked on multiple fronts. I wouldn’t have been as upset with Browne if she hadn’t also falsely claimed that OTOOS didn’t say anything about the origins of life, but the convoluted and self-contradictory passage on pp.60-61 was too much for me. You restored the claim twice (here and here) that “Darwin avoided mention of [human evolution / human origins] save for [one sentence]”, knowing that there was a legitimate issue to be discussed, knowing that the WP:BURDEN had not been met for inclusion, yet you put these claims back onto the article anyway to support your WP:FACTION. I was vindicated when DS added a citation to James Costa, who had, unknown to DS, made exactly the point that I was attacked for: that Darwin’s p.199 comment was an allusion to human origins.

4E. It seems that you go carefully through everything I post, not to see how we can work together to improve this great encyclopedia, but to protect DS when his outrageous posts trigger a backlash. In this 08:06, 6 July post at Talk: OTOOS, you say that everyone must focus on content (everyone, except yourself, it seems) and you advise me to “ask a plain question” if I’m “wondering about a change to content”. This sounds reasonable, right? Wrong! I had just finished asking “a plain question” in this 07:40, 6 July post at Talk: TDOM. My question was in response this 5 July edit which falsely defined polygenism as positing that the human races were separate species, when the dictionaries clearly indicate that the word is about the origin of the races, not their current taxonomic rank (not to mention his post was unverified WP:SYNTH). Following your intervention at Talk:OTOOS, DS restored his post to TDOM article and at the talk page, he pretended but refused to answer my question. When I pressed him to answer, he openly and flatly refused to answer, because, of course, the answer would have demonstrated that his synthesized definition was simply not correct, which he tacitly acknowledged in this edit.

4F. It is as though you are protecting a WP:Walled Garden, where false narratives get reinforced by more false narratives, and everyone inside the garden who does not want to drink the WP:KOOLAID needs to be attacked and marginalized. One of your favourite tactics is to respond to my post, stating how proud you are that you are ignoring everything I had written, including here, here, here, here, and here.


 * 5. RE: “If you have something to say about article content”: Why, yes, I do have something to say about On the Origin of Species. Geoffrey Hodgson is currently being cited to an inaccurate claim, which was first cited to source the false claim that Darwin hadn’t used varieties to refer to human races. When the accuracy of the source was challenged, DS defended the citation, saying: “Geoffrey Hodgson is a respected academic and is cited for the meaning of "favoured races"”. Well, the only thing Hodgson says about ‘favoured races’ on p.17 is the claim that “the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all.” Here is a direct quote, followed by Darwin’s comment on it:
 * Darwin complained that his critics misrepresented what he had said about sexual selection, writing: “I gave, however, a tolerably clear sketch of this principle [sexual selection] in the first edition of the 'Origin of Species,' and I there stated that it was applicable to man.” (TDOM, preface Ed.2, 1874, p.vi). Pretty hard to see how this is anything but an explicit reference to human races.
 * Darwin complained that his critics misrepresented what he had said about sexual selection, writing: “I gave, however, a tolerably clear sketch of this principle [sexual selection] in the first edition of the 'Origin of Species,' and I there stated that it was applicable to man.” (TDOM, preface Ed.2, 1874, p.vi). Pretty hard to see how this is anything but an explicit reference to human races.


 * 6. When I first started editing Wikipedia in December last year, your first comment to me correctly stated that: “What Darwin wrote 150 years ago should not be interpreted from a 21st century viewpoint”, yet this is exactly what Geoffrey Hodgson on p.16 in claiming Darwin wasn’t racist. Darwin repeatedly wrote (and believed) that the savage races are lower on the organic scale than the civilized races are, that they are closer to the apes. Darwin wrote that the civilized race are more highly evolved with superior intellectual and moral faculties. Given that you and I would be gutted and quartered by the modern inquisition if we were to say these things, it is dishonest to claim that Darwin wasn’t racist. Principles that apply to the 21st century cannot be applied verbatim to the 19th century; this is like dividing by zero, it is an undefined operation. In contrast to Hodgson, Leon Zitzer claims that Darwin was racist in his blog and his new book. While his application of principles that apply to one era, to a different era with different principles, is problematic, he seems (at first glance at least) to be more honest in reporting what Darwin actually wrote. Hodgson’s claim that Darwin wasn’t racist because he didn’t refer to human races in OTOOS is as nonsensical as saying Darwin wasn’t racist because $2+2=5$.


 * 7. DS has posted walls and walls of text, trying to defend the Hodgson citation. He has beaten around the bush, and used smoke screens and red herrings. In this post he wrote that Darwin’s references to human races in OTOOS were “not explicit references to human origins as such and the p.199 reference was “hardly an explicit discussion” of the “the "light will be thrown" point”. These points are completely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether Darwin referred to human races, not whether there was an explicit reference to human origins or whether there was an explicit discussion about human race.


 * 8. DS himself posted that Darwin explicitly referred to human races in OTOOS. Also, when MVBW edited the article, commenting that Darwin’s use of the term “races of man” meant “Race (biology)” and not “Race (human categorization)”, DS immediately reverted on the basis that the “sources clearly refer to human races”. Pretty hard to ignore this reality, when even the person trying to deny it is saying it himself.


 * 9. John, you didn’t have to get involved in this discussion, BUT YOU DID. Your restoration of disputed content places a WP:BURDEN on you to defend that content. You came onto my talk page to attack me. You wanted me blocked. You got me blocked. I was blocked for saying that Geoffrey Hodgson’s claim that “the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all” was inaccurate. Okay, that’s how that cookie crumbled. But now it’s time for you to put your money where your mouth is! In your opinion, does OTOOS explicitly refer to human races or not? Is Hodgson’s claim here accurate or inaccurate?  Thanks. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A heading above says "Questions for Johnuniq" so it is very reasonable for me to respond. However, my last comment still applies. If you ever want to have a discussion, you may like to engage with the points previously raised regarding content on the article talk page (at article talk). I suggest dropping the links and the commentary on other editors. Established editors see enough of that and really do not care—stuff like that makes it hard to see anything related to content, and harder to get motivated to engage because it is a signal that there would be no benefit from a discussion. Browse WP:ANI and the talk pages it mentions—there really is enough bickering and more is not needed. I am not at all squeamish, but that is not relevant. If considering whether to continue, it would be useful to ponder how it is that Wikipedia works at all. How could an anyone-can-edit top-five website be anything more than a disaster with important articles lurching in all directions with a different POV appearing each day? Of course a lot of time is wasted (I see that MOS:LQ is back on the agenda at WT:MOS), but there is an amazing amount of stability in key articles because editors who focus on discussing content prosper, while those who don't are eventually removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. RE: “it is very reasonable for me to respond”: Yes, John, it certainly is very reasonable for you to respond here. That is exactly why I put your name in the subtitle, that is why I pinged you, and that is why I used your name in para.9 where I asked an unanswered question. What is unreasonable is for you to have me blocked for calling something inaccurate if you actually agree that it is inaccurate. What else is unreasonable is refusing to answer a very simple question.
 * 2. RE: “you may like to engage with the points previously raised regarding content on the article talk page (at article talk)”: You started this conversation here. I would like you to answer the question here. That would be awesome.
 * 3. RE: “I suggest dropping the links and the commentary on other editors”: Of course you don’t want your history reported here. There has been false material posted to Darwin articles and you have been very aggressive in tag-teaming with less that scrupulous editors to frustrate my efforts at removing this false material. For instance, in this post you restored the false claim: “Darwin [believed] that black people were fully equal” when the cited authors actually wrote that, “He thought blacks inferior”. You don’t get much more egregious left-wing propaganda than that (see para 4B&4C in my post above). You have engaged in a clear pattern of stonewalling, which, whatever, might be water under the bridge, but only if you stop the stonewalling and finish the conversation you started here.
 * 4. RE: “Established editors…”: Yes, we all get it: you are higher on Wikipedia’s totem pole then I am. Congratulations!
 * 5. RE: “there really is enough bickering and more is not needed”: Seriously? Who went on whose talk page to attack whom?
 * 6. RE: “an anyone-can-edit top-five website”: Yes, it is amazing that an anyone-can-edit concept like Wikipedia can work. Yes, I know it takes a lot of work to maintain. Yes, I know you do a lot of good work here. But, no, you can’t just duck a question only because you don’t like the answer or because you think someone is too low on the totem pole. You still have to justify your actions.
 * 7. RE: “articles lurching in all directions with a different POV appearing each day?”: Yes stability is good, but not at the cost of protecting bullshit left-wing propaganda. Jimmy Wales wants false and misleading information removed aggressively from Wikipedia, something you mocked me for pointing out.
 * 8. RE: “I am not at all squeamish”: If you are not squeamish about Darwin’s views on race, then why do you refuse to answer such a simple question??! I can’t challenge a phantom opinion. You have consistently refused to provide your opinion on the relevant issue here. Please tell me if you think that Darwin explicitly referred to human races in OTOOS or not. Thanks. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not have you blocked. I am not motivated to debate article content here. I was not mocking you—I was attempting to give sound advice. It may have come over badly but my point was that established editors are used to enthusiasm—we are hoping that the standard procedures that are known to work (focus on content) will soon take effect. My "whatever point you are trying to make is lost" should be read at face value—it was an attempt to point out that there are reasons why focusing on content is desirable. Please consider asking for opinions at WP:TEAHOUSE. Briefly describe the situation and give a very small number of links to discussions (such as my comments) and ask what people think, and what they would suggest for resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. RE: “I did not have you blocked”: Sure, John, you had nothing to do with me being blocked! You called for me to be blocked on the article talk pages. You attacked me on my talk page at 6:05 and I was blocked by 10:27. But, of course, if you say it’s all just one big coincidence, who I am to question that. After all, I’m not an “established editor”. Nevertheless, I was blocked for calling Hodgson’s claim inaccurate, and in this comment you say: “I'm happy to offer opinions”, so I’m looking for your opinion on whether or not you think Hodgson’s claim here was actually accurate.


 * 2. RE: “I was attempting to give sound advice”: No, you weren’t. You were attempting to give “advice” that sounds reasonable, but is really a red herring to distract from the issue at hand. You have done this many times when I have challenged the sanctioned left-wing narrative, which you are trying to protect (like a WP:Walled Garden). That is why I provided some history in my 29 Oct post above, to provide evidence to back up my claims that you are not providing advice in good faith. Now you want me to take this to WP:TEAHOUSE, which is bad advice. I need to pressure you to put your money where your mouth is. You have repeatedly reverted my edits, restoring the disputed claim and telling me I need to get consensus. I need to pressure you to engage in the consensus-building process that you demand. I need to call you out for your hit-and-run editing. The next step for resolution is clear: determine if Darwin explicitly referred to human races in OTOOS or not.


 * 3. RE: “we are hoping that the standard procedures that are known to work (focus on content) will soon take effect” and “it was an attempt to point out that there are reasons why focusing on content is desirable”: You are such an absolute hypocrite. I have been pleading and begging for you to engage on content, but you have so far flatly refused, simply saying: “I am not motivated”. Please follow your own advice and tell me whether or not you think Darwin explicitly referred to human races in OTOOS. Thanks --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Everything I have done is wrong, but you would like me to spend time engaging in a discussion on a user talk page about article content? One of the discussions is here (permalink). That is over 11,000 words and involved five editors. I cannot add anything to the discussions that have already occurred. My TEAHOUSE suggestion was to gather some outside opinions on what has happened. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. RE: “Everything I have done is wrong”: YOU are the one always telling ME that I am doing something wrong, not the other way around. I have already praised you for doing a lot of good work in maintaining Wikipedia, which is certainly no easy task. Stability is important, but the problem arises from your left-wing bias and extreme partisanship in defending the “established editors” that are part of your WP:FACTION, just like Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich always defend Donald Trump, no matter how outrageous his comments are and they’ll attack anyone who points out that some of Trump’s statements are simply not true.


 * 2. RE: “you would like me to spend time engaging in a discussion on a user talk page about article content?: Yes! Yes! YES!!! Pretty please? Many other editors discuss content on user talk pages. It happens all the time and there is nothing in the rules against it. The answer is pretty simple too, either: “Hodgson’s claim is accurate” or “Hodson’s claim is inaccurate”. Four words shouldn’t take that much of your time, should it? Pretty extra please with SUGAR and CINNAMON???


 * 3. RE: “One of the discussions is here . . . I cannot add anything to the discussions that have already occurred.”: John, you could answer the question. You are simply refusing to focus on content, despite attacking me many times for exactly that. You CAN add something but you WON’T.
 * 4. The discussion you link to at Talk: OTOOS has walls and walls of text from DS, loaded with smoke screens and red herrings, pretending but refusing to answer the question at hand. In this post he said that it was “not [an] explicit reference[] to human origins as such” and “hardly an explicit discussion” totally dodging the real issue and the fact that it was an explicit reference to human races (see para.7 of my 29 Oct post above).
 * 5. Another thing you’ll find there, in this and this post, DS claims that James Costa equated Darwin’s use of ‘varieties’ with “the modern understanding of ‘race’”, when Costa said no such thing. You won’t find these false claims redacted, even though I asked him, he flatly refused with absolutely no explanation or justification (described here in para.3&4 Diff).
 * 6. You’ll also find me comparing distortions and misrepresentations of Darwin to YEC, where people irrationally believe the Earth is 6000 years old. I grew up and live in a religious community that believes in YEC, where people often make nonsensical claims, like your argument that the term “races of man” is only an implicit reference to human races, and then duck and dodge and weave when I try to pin them down on what they really believe. The problem here is Wikipedia is not a small community, but a important encyclopedia for the world where this stonewalling critically undermines the First Pillar.


 * 7. RE: “My TEAHOUSE suggestion was to gather some outside opinions on what has happened.”: John, it was not TEAHOUSE that reverted my edits, restoring disputed content, it was you. It was not TEAHOUSE that came to the talk pages and asked for me to be blocked, it was you. It is not TEAHOUSE that edits like a WP:NINJA. I am extremely frustrated with your I-am-an-“experienced-editor”-and-don’t-have-to-respond-to-newcomers attitude. I think it completely violates the spirit of collaborative editing. How am I supposed to know what edits you find acceptable? How can we reach a consensus if you never say what your position is on critical issues? If you disagree with any of my positions, please say so. Disagreements can be difficult, but at least we can start working for a compromise if we know what the parameters are. Disagreements are manageable, but I find your stonewalling extremely painful. Do you care about the accuracy of the article or don’t you? --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Aggression
Your last two edits were to post comments at Talk:On the Origin of Species: Particularly given the history, those edits show far too much aggression and personal commentary. There should have been plenty of time to reflect on what procedures might be effective at Wikipedia, and to consider whether any of the advice on this page should be followed. I will not engage in further discussion here as evidence shows that is unproductive, but I will seek administrative remedies if there is further inability to focus on content. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 November 2016
 * 17 November 2016


 * 1.  Yes, of course, you think I am too aggressive (I “show far too much aggression”). We all know why. You are an “established editor” and I am not. Newcomers are supposed to stay inside the WP:Walled Garden and drink the WP:KOOLAID; they shouldn’t question the established narrative with facts. You are a WP:NINJA warrior out to protect your WP:GANG from *silly* things like WP:BRD: Bold editing, Reverting, but then Discussing disagreements in good faith . Ninjas don’t take guff from anyone, especially from someone, gasp, trying to enforce WP:BRD misuse:


 * 2A. When you first came onto my talk page with your wild accusations, I knew I had to take action. You have repeatedly reverted my edits for irrelevant and/or unexplained reasons. The quote from WP:BRD misuse hits the nail on the head; if I don’t force you to discuss your edits and/or call you out for refusing, you will just continue your ninja editing with impunity. One reason why parties in a content dispute should explain their position (which you have refused to do) is because there is often agreement on more points than first meets the eye. Second, third parties can only help when they understand what the dispute is over. Third parties won’t know if you think Darwin referred to human races in OTOOS or not, nor will they understand why you are so hell-bent on keeping these sources (which claim that he didn’t). Noticeboards and other WP:DR mechanisms can’t read your mind so they will be completely useless you spell out your position. I was contemplating asking you on your talk page but then you came here, so I continued the discussion, opening up the subsection above. I knew you were smart, slippery, and extremely effective with red herrings, so I decided to take my time and insist very firmly that you follow your own rules, but I never quite imagined how stubborn and hypocritical you have shown yourself to be.
 * When you first came onto my talk page to trash me, you posed some questions for me yet when I replied, you pointed out that you are “not motivated to read” my comments. When I asked you if you really thought Hodgson’s claim – the citation you were edit warring to keep – was even accurate, you gruffly told me to “drop that line and forget the history” and to “move forward”.
 * When I pose the question the second time, you respond by saying “stability in key articles” is more important that accuracy, that if I wanted to discuss content I should bring this up “on the article talk page (at article talk)” and that you won’t discuss content yourself because “there would be no benefit from a discussion”; this despite all the hell you are gave me for allegedly not discussing content: “editors who focus on discussing content prosper, while those who don't are eventually removed”. This is such a dog whistle to your WP:GANG to find excuses to have me blocked for not drinking the WP:KOOLAID.
 * Honesty and accuracy are absolutely critical to an encyclopedia, so rather than slink off with my tail between my legs, I asked a third time. You responded by “hoping that the standard procedures that are known to work (focus on content) will soon take effect” which was very much my hope too. That is why I was asking you to discuss your edits. But, alas, you played the WP:NINJA card, claiming to be “not motivated to debate article content”. But, you said, I could ask WP:TEAHOUSE to read your mind and state your positions and have one of your buddies inform me how much better it would be better to drink the WP:KOOLAID than to push WP:BRD.
 * When I pressed the fourth time, you had the nerve to query whether I wanted you “to spend time engaging in a discussion … about article content?” Your question is so incredibly rude, you have been giving me shit left, right, and centre for not discussing content and this is your response after I ask you 4 times to discuss the edits that you yourself made and you want to prevent me from reverting but won’t even explain. You cited the 11,000 plus words in the discussions at Talk: OTOOS, Meaning of Favoured races: sources, as proof that you could “not add anything to the discussions that have already occurred”. However, your contribution (at the time) consisted of only 3 posts (around 186 words or less than 2% of the total conversation), none of which explained your position on the substance of the dispute, so, unless you are just a puppet who channels another editor, you sure as hell could have added your opinion about the disputed claim. You are not short of words when you see Dave in a bit of a pickle, then you have something to add. In your 29th June post you pretend like you had no idea what I was talking about and cast WP:ASPERSIONS on me for allegedly only editing one topic area, as if personal details somehow trump the facts I’m presenting. When Dave called for comments from other editors (“to get consensus on this wording it would be good to have comments from other editors”), your 14th July post signaled very very clearly to your WP:GANG to be careful to not say anything that might compromise the party line, as MVBW did, requiring this correction. Your 6th July post said, “Everyone must focus on content” and that if I was “wondering about a change to content” then I should “ask a plain question”. Yet when I wondered about the Hodgson citation, that you edit warred to keep, and asked you a plain question about it, not once, not twice, but four times , you sure as hell didn’t “focus on content”. You just ignore what you preach to others.
 * You didn’t respond at all to my fifth attempt at all. Not only have you not answered the question, you have not provided a reason beyond being “not motivated to”. You also refuse to respond to the other points I raise, yet you come back to my talk page (to attack me for trying to remove clear and utter bullshit from the article) while promising that you “will not engage in further discussion” with me. If edit WP:NINJAing was an Olympic sport, you would be in gold medal contention.
 * 2B. There are also other fictional claims that you have restored in edit wars. When I deleted the line, “Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior”, Dave reflexively restored the false claim, *defending* it like a cult leader with an endless stream of nonsensical mumbo-jumbo  . Even if these talk page posts made sense (they don’t) and presented a compelling argument that Darwin didn’t perceive any race as inferior (LOL, good luck with that given the massive number of times Darwin referred to this or that race as inferior), Wikipedia still requires a published source to WP:VERIFY claims posted in the article! Where were you now with all your sermons that all content needs to be “based on scholarly analysis by reliable secondary sources”? You didn’t mention to Dave that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are prohibited; why do you only preach to me? Anyway, I managed to get that particular bullshit claim removed, but Dave struck again, this time posting: “Darwin [believed] that other races were equal humans” and “Darwin [believed] that black people were fully equal”. When I forcefully called him out for posting such incredible dishonesty, you restored this bullshit, claiming I was an “WP:SPA”. Seriously, what the hell difference does it make whether or not I focus mostly on one problem area of Wikipedia? What about all your sermons for me to “focus on content”?!! Why didn’t you discuss content at all? All the times you have attacked me for “personal commentary” and now you use this as your justification to restore this left wing propaganda? The fact is, you don’t care about the truth. You don’t care about Wikipedia’s policies, except when they are to your benefit. You don’t care that the cited passage does not verify the claim; it says something else entirely. You don’t care that what the cited authors actually said on point was that Darwin “thought blacks inferior”. This is why I keep pointing out that you behave like a YECist, you know that the facts are against you so you edit like a WP:NINJA and then use smoke screens and red herrings to prevent a proper conversation with real facts from happening. You want everyone to simply drink the WP:KOOLAID rather than acknowledge an obvious inaccuracy, but this violates the core principles of Wikipedia.


 * 3. In my numerous content disputes that I have had with Dave, I can’t recall one time you have acknowledged that I was right about anything. Whether I was trying to discuss Darwin’s views of higher and lower races, what the real definition of polygenism is, the number of times Darwin alluded to human origins in OTOOS, or whether he referred to human races at all, you would always provide WP:TAGTEAM support for Dave. Your “advice” was usually phony, meant to distract me and others and/or to send a signal to your base. I started editing last December, hoping to have an honest conversation about what is true about the greatest biologist of all time and what is not. You clearly are squeamish about this (contrary to your denials above) and have been trying to get me blocked, since my 13th post, for challenging the establishment narrative you want protected. You are clever, quick-witted, and have very powerful friends here, so I don’t take this threat lightly, but I’m not quite as convinced as you are that they will step up to the plate over such an obvious WP:HOAX as:
 * "races of man" = "varieties of human" ≠ "human races".
 * 4. Dave responded by claiming consensus with you and, while it is true that you two are both angry at me for calling out WP:NINJA editing, you have never engaged in any discussion about article content, so it is not possible to have consensus on this point. John, I would very much appreciate if you could clarify this with Dave at Talk: OTOOS. Thanks so much. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI
Please respond at this ANI discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent personal attacks and filibustering on Talk:On the Origin of Species after being warned about that very thing in July 2016. See especially. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. This is an appeal for you to reverse my 2 week block. There was a very brief conversation (archived here) at WP:ANI, which you prematurely ended by blocking me, before anything was even decided. My “huge long post” (as you called it) was neither a personal attack nor filibustering. The article OTOOS cites a passage that makes a blatantly false claim in gross violation of WP:RS. Yet when I pointed this out to Dave Souza and Johnuniq and pushed them to agree or disagree, they stonewalled and filibustered (it wasn’t me filibustering, I was trying to get answers). When I kept demanding answers, they accused me of excessive “aggression” so I posted a list of their own aggressions in defence. Pointing out numerous major violations of Wikipedia’s core content policies is not a personal attack. It is extremely unfortunate that you prevented a more fulsome discussion at WP:ANI before rushing to judgement. I’ll expand on these points below, but I’ll start with another point that was raised at ANI.


 * 2. Commenting on User:JzG/Guy’s assertion that I am “clearly humour impaired”, I can say that he is absolutely 100% correct. The claims in this edit are so laughably false it should be the joke of the century, but somehow, I’m not laughing. In fact, it makes me so sick to the stomach that I’m closer to puking. This ongoing and completely fucked up obsession to claim Darwin believed things we all know he didn’t sure as hell isn’t coming from the right. Johnuniq knew very well that these claims were not only false, but also unverified synthesis. But rather than concede the point, he restored them, claiming it was justified because I focused most of my edits on one topic area. Seriously, what the f*&#??? Claiming WP:SPA is not an excuse to ignore WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, not to mention WP:DON’TPOSTBULLSHIT.


 * 3. Anyway, Dave Souza introduced the Hodgson and TalkOrigins sources back in June to verify a false post. When the post was removed, he was hell-bent determined to keep the citations to the passages that made the same bullshit claim. Given that we all know that Darwin referred to human races in OTOOS, Hodgson’s claim to the contrary should be funny, but I’m too humour impaired to see the joke. You blocked me in August, claiming that Dave thought Hodgson’s claim was accurate. This is completely untrue. Dave does agree that Darwin referred to human races in OTOOS, something he has repeatedly posted.


 * 4. Johnuniq has repeatedly come onto my talk page here to accuse me of not properly discussing content (see conversations above) and has reposted the disputed citations  but then aggressively refused to engage in any discussion as to whether or not they are even accurate. Even though I asked him time and time and time again to either discuss his edits, or stop resisting their removal, he simply refused again and again and again. He even told me, “editors who focus on discussing content prosper, while those who don't are eventually removed” but in another post he stated that he “will not engage in further discussion” with me. So, if you follow his logic, he is the one that will be “eventually removed” because he is not discussing content. Given Johnuniq’s refusal to collaborate (despite his often chastising of others for not collaborating), I asked Dave to clarify his position, but Johnuniq intervened (so much for not engaging in discussions), so I repeated the question (and also asked Johnuniq for a clarification of his position) but both just flatly refused to answer. So I informed Dave that if he refused to defend the citation, I would go ahead and remove Hodgson’s claim which we all know is as false as 2+2=5. Rather than concede the point, however, they each accused me of excessive aggression.


 * 5. This is the filibustering that Robert McClenon was referring to. Everyone knows that 2+2≠5, that the sky is not green, and that Hodgson’s claim is inaccurate, but Dave and Johnuniq think they are so clever by using insinuation and innuendo to try to pretend the opposite, and then simply refuse to answer my direct questions. How utterly childish; what a stupid way to build an encyclopedia. I’m the one trying to get answers on whether they think the citation is accurate; they are the ones filibustering; but then you take it upon yourself to accuse ME of filibustering. That is not what Robert McClenon said, yet you were prosecution, judge, jury, and executioner all at once and blocked me before I could reply at WP:ANI.


 * 6. Jimmy Wales has said to “remove aggressively” any false and misleading information. Claims that Darwin never referred to human races in OTOOS certainly fit the bill. Yet Dave and Johnuniq are trying to paint me as the bad guy here. Everyone has a right to defend themselves against baseless accusations, so when they accused me of “too much aggression”, I simply pointed out their own aggression. I also made another post which focused exclusively on content so there was absolutely no reason for Johnuniq to delete it. Even Dave agreed it was discussing content. Yet Johnuniq did delete it on the basis that talk pages are “for discussion on article content”. If he thinks one post or part of one post is not appropriate, why is he deleting two separate posts? He needs to stop and think before he acts, which is why I reverted his deletion. Not to restore my comments about Dave’s aggressive editing per se, but to ask him to read and think before he just starts deleting.


 * 7. When Johnuniq launched a complaint at WP:ANI, he did not come with clean hands. He said that I didn’t follow his advice, which was to discuss article content. Well, he neglected to mention that he has consistently time and time again refused to discuss his own edits. Furthermore, in his ANI post, he explicitly asked for “advice on how to proceed”. No one was asking for me to be blocked. So, why did you take it upon yourself to be prosecution, judge, jury, and executioner here? There is supposed to be a proper discussion, especially when the prosecuting side obviously has unclean hands. Well, we all know why. You blocked me for speaking truth to power. I had already removed Dave’s bullshit posts that Darwin didn’t see any races as inferior and that Darwin only alluded to human origins one time in OTOOS. I had removed the citation to Janet Browne’s passage that falsely claimed that Darwin only alluded one time to human origins in OTOOS, which Dave wanted to keep, even though it claimed the opposite of what the line that cited it said. This is what you are trying to stop.


 * 8. In your response at WP:ANI, you acknowledged evidence of “nefarious and WP:OWNY actions”. You also wrote that “the linked edit … has now again been removed, by a different editor, who I suppose thereby becomes another "friend"” referring to this edit. You are very perceptive, that editor has already demonstrated being a “friend” with this edit summary: “Rv per Dave Souza.” He is at least being straight up, in contrast to Johnuniq who often reverts me saying something like, “you need consensus” and then refusing to agree that the sky is blue or that 2+2=4. So in effect, Johnuniq is also reverting me per Dave Souza because he has never openly disagreed with Dave on anything. Furthermore, not one of the editors reverting me has ever posted original content to the article or made suggestions about content on the talk page. Pretty hard to get more clear evidence of “a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership”, one of the definitions of Multiple-editor ownership.


 * 9. I am asking you to reverse the block you imposed on me. I was and am critical of violations of Wikipedia’s policies, but I did not engage in personal attacks nor was I filibustering. You should not have prematurely ended the discussions at WP:ANI, especially given clear evidence of ownership concerns and your own extensive history with those editors. I should not be penalized for editing sensitive topics. Thank you for your consideration. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * First with "There was a very brief conversation ... at WP:ANI, which prematurely ended by blocking me, before anything was even decided", etc, you misunderstand the role of Wikipedia admins, Stan Giesbrecht. They're trusted to block users on their own discretion, and that's what I did, after taking a look at your contributions and user talkpage. I didn't block per the short ANI discussion, which in this case merely served the purpose of reminding me that I had spoken with you before (warned you in July 2016, here, and blocked you for two days in August), nor did I close the ANI section. It was closed the next day. I take full responsibility for your block, and will not unblock you, because your attempt above to prove that Dave Souza and Johnuniq were the filibusterers hasn't convinced me. However, blocks can be appealed to an uninvolved admin. For that, you should use the unblock request template which I provided in my block notice above; it has some code in it which will automatically call an uninvolved admin to this page. Theoretically, you can paste your long post above into the template, but I'd advise you to shorten and focus it before you do. You may want to leave out things like the political reference, "This ongoing and completely fucked up obsession to claim Darwin believed things we all know he didn’t sure as hell isn’t coming from the right", which I have trouble even understanding — is your whole crusade about politics, then? — and your misunderstanding (or misuse) of my ANI post when you say I "acknowledged evidence of 'nefarious and WP:OWNY actions'" on the part of Dave Souza and his 'friends'. But that's up to you. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC).


 * 1. RE: “is your whole crusade about politics, then?”: No, not at all. My main purpose here is to remove false and misleading information, post accurate information, and otherwise improve Wikipedia to the best of my abilities. I see it as a major problem when a single editor repeatedly posts his own synthesized claim that Darwin never saw any races as inferior, especially when he defends these false claims with a stream of mumbo jumbo on the talk pages. As I mentioned to JzG/Guy below (24 January post), it is fine to provide context when it is accurate and true, but passages making utterly false claims should not be cited. When you blocked me in August, you claimed that the proponents of this and the TalkOrigins citations thought they were accurate. On this point, you were flat out wrong. Dave has repeatedly posted that Darwin referred to human races in OTOOS. He knows very well that Hodgson’s claim to the contrary is complete bullshit. Everyone should be on a “crusade” against this kind of misrepresentation, not blocking those that are trying to have a frank and honest, even if difficult, conversation here.
 * 2. RE: “I take full responsibility for your block, and will not unblock you, because your attempt above to prove that Dave Souza and Johnuniq were the filibusterers hasn't convinced me.”: Well, Johnuniq has repeatedly reverted my edits citing a lack of consensus and told me many times that I am not properly discussing content, while at the same time, flatly refusing to answer any question I have about his own opinion on the accuracy or otherwise of the disputed content. While this is obviously completely orthogonal to the spirit of collaboration that Wikipedia is built on, I also don’t know if such actions amount to filibustering or not. But, as JzG/Guy points out below, Johnuniq and Dave’s actions are not the issue in this appeal. You are accusing me of filibustering and that is the issue here. I see no evidence of such action on my part. Removing citations that violate WP:RS is not filibustering. Asking, and even demanding, editors to justify their posts is not filibustering when there are serious and legitimate concerns not being addressed. Pushing editors to say whether they think a passage they want cited is accurate or not is not filibustering. If you are still unwilling to unblock me, please explain your rational for your claim that I was filibustering. Thank you. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this is all one thread, I'm replying at the bottom on the page, in an effort to respect chronology. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Your point no. 2 is hysterically overblown. Combined with the rest of the wall of text (characteristic for you, it seems), you'll find that virtually anybody will file your comments here under TL;DR.
 * I am reasonably familiar with the way some people abuse Darwin's writing to make racist talking points. I am also familiar with the historical context that makes most of these talking points invalid. I have no idea of the specifics of the specific point you're trying to argue, though, because you have yet to state your case succinctly and without straying into blatant ad hominem.
 * To be clear: if you continue with the personal attacks and edit warring, you will almost certainly end up permanently blocked per WP:BATTLE, so please take the remaining days of your block to come up with a concisely stated proposed edit which does not embody personal attacks and which can be posted on the talk page for calm discussion with a view to gaining consensus. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Guy, 1. RE: para.3: I have to disagree with you most emphatically here. Pointing out patterns of gross policy violations is simply not a personal attack. (I’m not saying there is no risk of me being blocked, but accuracy and reliability here are worth taking risks for.)
 * 2. RE: para.1: I can’t apologize for my extreme lack of patience when an editor repeatedly posts the bullshit claim that Darwin never saw any races as inferior given how consistently Darwin referred to the races as higher and lower throughout his publications and letters (especially given that the posts were entirely original synthesis with plenty of reliable secondary sources stating the exact opposite) or when another editor reverts my edit on the basis that I am not an “established editor” with enough edits in a wide enough range of topics while ignoring all the points I raised on the talk page.
 * 3. RE: para.2: This paragraph gets right to the heart of the dispute here. I have no problem when context is provided about Darwin, so long as the claims are true. The point is, not all of them are true, and that’s a problem. Geoffrey Hodgson – first cited here – makes a completely and blatantly false claim:
 * “Some have seen its reference to ‘favoured races’ as evidence of racism. But the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all.” (emphasis added, Geoffrey Hodgson, Economics in the Shadows of Darwin and Marx, page 17)
 * Yes, it does. OTOOS very definitely refers to human races. What’s next, 3+1≠4? Yet, when I pointed this out on the talk pages, all I got was wikilawyering and stonewalling. When I went ahead and removed the bullshit citation, I was met with an edit war. I thought pointing out that Dave himself has repeatedly pointed out in posts to the article that Darwin clearly referred to human races in OTOOS would surely demonstrate the obvious, but it made no difference to the edit war. I decided to ask both Dave and Johnuniq very directly if they thought the claim was accurate. I thought I could make them put their money where their mouth is, but they simply refused to answer, no matter how hard I tried to push. The burden rests on the party seeking inclusion, and they won’t even say their citation is accurate??? Their only defence is that I don’t have consensus? That’s definitely not meeting the burden. It should be removed, but I got reverted every time I tried. Would anyone allow a citation to a passage that claims that the pope endorsed Trump? Of course not. No fake news, right? I am near my wits end, Guy. Can you explain to me why we should cite a passage which states that Darwin never referred to human races in OTOOS when we all know he did? --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Add WP:NOTTHEM to your reading list. Bye. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked you for personal attacks and filibustering, yes: insulting other users, questioning their good faith, and specifically (since you ask about the "filibustering") filling the article talkpage with lengthy irrelevancies and soapboxing after warnings. Since you hazard a supposition that reverting your edits and/or eventually refusing to respond to you any more might amount to filibustering on the part of your opponents, I suggest you look up the word in a dictionary, for instance filibuster.
 * Stan, I blocked you for two weeks on January 14, twelve days ago. In all that time, you have ignored my suggestions that you appeal to an uninvolved admin per the instructions in my block notice as well as later. Obviously there wouldn't be that much point in appealing now, with two days left of the block, so I won't repeat my suggestion again. But I'm surprised you never took that advice. When you return from the block, I hope you'll have considered and digested Guy's advice above about how to proceed in the future to avoid being blocked indefinitely per WP:BATTLE. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC).


 * 1. My block expired this morning, so I guess that’s one for the history books. But I have a few comments, as I am not sure you quite understand the situation.
 * 2. RE: “… eventually refusing to respond to you any more”: If only, Bishonen, if only. Unfortunately you are seeing what you want to see here. Johnuniq refused to respond to any of my questions right from the very start. He never answered even one question I put to him. Instead, he would usually reply with unsolicited and irrelevant “advice”, but never making any attempt to address my question that I was actually asking. Despite criticizing me time and time and time again for allegedly not properly discussing content, he flatly refused to discuss his own edits. He knows very well that Darwin referred to human races in OTOOS, but just flatly refused to acknowledge this reality no matter how many times I asked him. But, if he would have conceded this reality, it would have shown Hodgson’s claim to the contrary to be inaccurate, validating my removal of it, and demonstrating that your stated reason for blocking me back in August was entirely groundless. Not only has Johnuniq repeatedly reverted my edits citing a lack of consensus, and then refusing to engage in any consensus building discussions on the content he edited, there was one time that I managed to convince Dave to ask for comments from other editors in an effort to build a consensus where he actually intervened to warn other editors against collaboration. That is, he actively interfered with consensus building efforts. Wouldn’t want anyone to point out that Darwin referred to human races in OTOOS, now would we? So, yeah, there was no “eventually refusing to respond” with Johnuniq, it was a very immediate refusal to respond. (In my humble opinion, a really lousy way to build an encyclopedia.)
 * 3. But, you are right that I need to reconsider my moves going forward. The fact that editors should answer good faith questions in good faith doesn’t always mean that they will. The fact that an editor continuously criticizes someone else for not properly discussing content doesn’t mean that they will discuss their own edits. I was trying to follow WP:BRDWRONG which says: “The key to dealing with an edit ninja is to force them to discuss their edits.” But, just like you can’t squeeze blood from a WP:TURNIP, you can’t actually force an editor to discuss their own edits when they don’t want to, so in the future I will look to other options, such as noticeboards, to broaden the conversation, when editors simply refuse to practice what they preach.
 * 4. I do have one request here, and that is that I think you are WP:INVOLVED going forward, so I would ask you to refrain from acting as an administrator in any potential dispute with respect to my future editing. I intend to take a short break from the Darwin topic, so hopefully things can settle down a bit and we can all work together to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Bishonen isn't involved and can still act as an Admin in any future disputes. Doug Weller  talk 07:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Stan, you thinking me involved doesn't make me so. You link to WP:INVOLVED, but did you read it, beyond the first paragraph? I want to draw your attention to the second. But never mind for now; I hope no admin will have to intervene with respect to your future editing. Taking a break from Darwin and broadening your WP interests sounds like a good idea. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Here’s hoping that all editors respect Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies and honour the spirit of collaboration that Wikipedia is built on, in which case you have nothing to worry about. Anyway, maybe are paths will cross again in less difficult circumstances. Cheers. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)