User talk:Stonkaments

The R&I parody material
Hello Stonkaments,

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.

First, I'd like to ensure you've noticed the closed discussion here, initiated by, 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.

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 page theory", but its origin was not on talk pages of Wikipedia 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.

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 here and here, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the Kathryn Paige Harden 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 know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username Kfotfo, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from "Jensen", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL".

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 this and this, we succeeded at demonstrating that. What I want to emphasize here is that these claims about contemporary researchers in the field of psychometrics come exclusively from the parody material we added. It isn't difficult to find legitimate sources (such as this one) 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.

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 project to discredit it was a worthwhile endeavor, but I never supported their subsequent project to add the same type of material to Wikipedia. My preference was, and still is, for Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia, it makes a very strong point about how vulnerable Wikipedia is to being manipulated by right-leaning trolls if they adopt the rhetoric of antiracism.

Incidentally, 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. 2600:1004:B147:4751:3970:E21B:3D74:B13A (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 here, 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.


 * There are probably also a few other active Wikipedia 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 Twitter.Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this information was being discussed in a voice chat in the RationalWiki Discord, and that's where I heard about it. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's contextually important here that, per WP:UGC, 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; WP:V 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 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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The FAQ does not cite RationalWiki directly. The source for its claims about the field of psychometrics is this paper, 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 exists 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 Wikipedia editors, but for which nobody has ever been able to provide a real source, and which now is codified in the FAQ.


 * 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 incompatible with the decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory. See the discussion here 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 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.


 * 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 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 . Gardenofaleph (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of lame mess that WP:NPOVN and/or WP:NORN 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 editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There were recent discussions at both NPOVN and NORN about closely related issues.  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 noticeboards.


 * The admin who closed the NPOVN discussion explained his reasoning here: "The load-bearing part of JBL's comment was this: "If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC". It's the clear consensus of the community that there is not such a fundamental issue, and you need to respect that." The RFC he's referring to is the one that occurred on the article's talk page, 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 questions. As I mentioned in my last comment, the admin who shut down the discussion at NORN gave a similar explanation.


 * 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 them. Gardenofaleph (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 "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. If they will support such a bold-faced falsehood–despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary–against 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.
 * Sadly, this whole episode has greatly harmed my estimation of the accuracy and neutrality of the Wikipedia project more generally, especially on articles that are likely to be a sensitive subject for the identity politics mob. Stonkaments (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're really only just now realizing WP has a serious neutrality problem in such topic areas? Surely you jest.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. 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 majority of editors, that is a whole other beast (as thoughtfully explained by here:  ). 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. Stonkaments (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Stonkaments, since several editors who’ve 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 of the attempts to raise this issue on talk pages and noticeboard have quickly been shut down (most recently here), 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? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Stonkaments (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are two points in particular I'd like to hear from other editors about:


 * 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 that?


 * in your comments here, 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.


 * The new FAQ clearly is intended to preemptively reject future sources that go against the current consensus of Wikipedia 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 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.
 * The recent objections raised by   and Stonkaments  show how in the present editing environment, the substance 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 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.
 * If things continue along their current trajectory, the editors who've objected to the approach prescribed in the FAQ will gradually give up or forget about the issue, and then this approach to sourcing will be assumed to have consensus because there is no longer anyone arguing against it. Since this approach includes misrepresenting sources and using blogs as sources (as summarized here), that can't be an acceptable long-term result.


 * Any additional input on these or related issues would be appreciated.


 * I recognize that any action we take runs the risk of making things worse, but they are virtually guaranteed 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 DGG) have suggestions about what ought to be done instead? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Origins of COVID-19.
 * 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. 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. )   .   DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 rather than for finding the truth and sharing it with the public. On the bright side, everyone knows that Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia itself acknowledges this and I think the general public knows this, too. It is just that many of us turn to Wikipedia for the sake of convenience rather than treating it as a sort of oracle. Nerd271 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 of editors trumping sources. It's such a blatant policy violation, wouldn't Arbcom address this? Jacques Street (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 sourcing restriction. 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. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 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 this 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 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.     DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This essay has really helped me understand the problem in a new light. Wikipedia is fundamentally committed to the primacy of academic and scientific sources above all others ("its cult of the sanctity of mainstream peer-review"). 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. Wikipedia is designed to parrot the mainstream scientific view, no matter what. "Resistance is futile."
 * Of course, that still doesn't excuse editors misrepresenting 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. Stonkaments (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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 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.  DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, as he may want to be part of this discussion.


 * 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 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.


 * 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 up. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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 ─ just as I don't know precisely what the scientific consensus is on the matter. It seems like 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. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my preferred option as well. what do you think? Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 around how to weight WP:FRINGE against other Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP, 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.


 * Do you support what I'm proposing here? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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   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. .    DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a good idea—addressing 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 generally serves WP quite well (properly dismissing pseudoscience and conspiracy theories which are all too pervasive−homeopathy, 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 misrepresentation of fringe topics. We have WP:FRINGE/ALT and WP:V, 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. Stonkaments (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 sourcing restriction 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 case.


 * 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 to do it either.


 * 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. Gardenofaleph (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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 common, as you've both given more attention to Covid related disputes than Gardenofaleph or I have. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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?)
 * 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 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)
 * 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 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.
 * no need to ping; I'll look here.  DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the three issues you mentioned, I think an arbitration case should be about the first two: sanctions against editors who have misused WP:FRINGE as a justification to violate other Wikipedia 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 conflict between WP:FRINGE as it's currently interpreted and other policies, particularly WP:V and WP:RS.


 * 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 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.


 * 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 WP:V and WP:RS 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. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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? Gardenofaleph (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , see reply
 * 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 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 give me a dew days please !!  DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * please have patience  DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Gardenofaleph}}  see my talk p. please dont ask me for anything for a few days at least. ;  DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Gardenofaleph}}  see my talk p. please dont ask me for anything for a few days at least. ;  DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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 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.   DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I've come to think that the most fundamental issue underlying these various debates is a deep misunderstanding of science itself, so I'm wondering if this is where we should focus the ArbCom discussion. General overview of the argument as follows: 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 offense!). There's little reason to trust scientists more than others in general, except 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 can and does reliably generate trustworthy results, but only when two very important conditions are met: We shouldn't expect science 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 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 method, 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 general—which is basically the exact opposite of proper science.
 * 1) The hypotheses being studied must be falsifiable.
 * 2) The institutions and scientific community must readily promote and reward the falsification of hypotheses.

I think this also sheds some light on the issues we've seen of editors misrepresenting the scientific consensus, because I think they're directionally right. They're right in the sense that the scientific consensus would like to say, 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 actual scientific consensus says—never mind a few troubling facts to the contrary.

But, is Wikipedia equipped to handle this problem? Is it possible to recognize the limitations of scientific research without overreaching into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? How do we avoid giving undue legitimacy to all the psuedoscience that gets rightfully dismissed due to WP:Academic bias? Analyzing the validity of a scientific consensus is obviously extremely fraught and controversial—any 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 should discount scientific consensus views that are unfalsifiable, and it should take into account the stifling effects of a scientific community hostile to heterodox views. Could we develop a Reliable Science guideline in the same way we have guidelines on reliable sources? Or could we update WP:FRINGE policy to account for this somehow (maybe some guidance to actually place more weight on inconvenient findings and unpopular views that come out despite hostility)? Stonkaments (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Would you mind turning on your Wikipedia 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. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The usual suspects are back at it again here, arguing against the notion that there is any connection between race and intelligence. Stonkaments (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be valuable for you to offer your views in the discussion here. 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 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). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping—I'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 [as described by Tryptofish here] or another ArbCom case both seem reasonable at first glance), but I'll try to weigh in once the ball gets rolling.
 * I think DGG dropped a lot of wisdom in that discussion as well, especially: 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 preconceptions. 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. Stonkaments (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ip editor

 * 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 here. To the IP editor, I'm sure you're also reading this - also have a read of that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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 wondering if there shouldn't be an even more comprehensive review of your edits. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was reverting a BLP violation, which I was under the impression is not subject to the edit-warring policy. Is that incorrect? Stonkaments (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [ec] 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 the BLPN discussion gives you much reason to claim this, sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The majority of uninvolved editors in the BLPN discussion seem to agree that it is a BLP violation. *shrug* Stonkaments (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is categorically untrue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Stonkaments (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I must express my opinion that you would do well to stay out of it once you return. There's enough conflict there already.  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Time to choose
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 the years and you are probably aware that you are on a trajectory that generally ends in a permanent ban.

I have the impression that your basic motivation for being on Wikipedia 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, the very fact of being contrarian would amplify the value of your contributions here. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I genuinely appreciate the advice. But I'll admit I'm at a bit of a loss—how 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, 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." Stonkaments (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Stonkaments, I don't know exactly what 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 Nicholas Wade 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 to continue disrupting. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 broadly accepted. I learned my lesson and have no intention of edit warring.
 * I don't understand how this was a violation of policy. Could you please unblock me? Stonkaments (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are blocked for edit warring over the same content you were blocked for before. What you did here, you also did here. That you think you were right ("level heads would prevail") doesn't change the fact. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit war though, I literally made the change once and let it be after being reverted. Stonkaments (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (disclosure: involved) Edit warring isn't determined by the number of reverts. There was a long discussion at Talk:Nicholas_Wade. 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) - see here for a justified reversion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My edit was fully in line with BRD policy. WP:CYCLE: 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 kind of edit warring.
 * 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 well. 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.
 * Lastly, I see that I am not the only one who has observed your disruptive editing in this area. Stonkaments (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lastly, I see that I am not the only one who has observed your disruptive editing in this area. Stonkaments (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , 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>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.  DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of that—it 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). Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.  DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leprosy in Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Hansen's Disease Museum. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Barbecue Hall of Fame
Hello, Stonkaments. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Barbecue Hall of Fame, 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 article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ideanomics, Inc. Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Ideanomics, Inc. Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wade warring
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 Nicholas Wade. 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Metals Company
Looks like someone sneakily removed any negative info on The Metals Company article. I’m going to be offline for a while. Thought I’d let you know as you did such extensive work on it. Best, Thriley (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Stonkaments (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship NPOV discussion
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)