User talk:Zeromus1

Welcome!

 * }

August 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Tom Bombadil has been reverted. Your edit here to Tom Bombadil was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Bombadil) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to an external Wiki, then please note that these links should generally not be included (see 'links to avoid' #12). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias in Mental Testing
Hi, I got around to reading this article only now. Excellent work. I hope you'll get into editing other articles around these topics as well, because many of them are a mess.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's good to know at least one person involved in these articles knows how to be welcoming.  But I must say, the welcome I've received at Talk:Race_and_intelligence has been pretty rude.  A lot of the regulars on these articles seem to make judgments about what does or doesn't misrepresent a source before they've read all of it, or to just attack other editors for who they are without trying to answer the arguments being made.  It's hard to say how long I'll be motivated to keep editing in the topic if it's usually like this. Zeromus1 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you do have to go through a lot of hassle when editing race & intelligence articles, no matter how well sourced and relevant your edits are. This is particularly true of the main R&I article which has long been essentially gridlocked. It's easier to make progress in related articles that are smaller in scope. I've recently stayed out of the main article and mainly worked on general psychometrics and behavioral genetics articles that are only tangentially related to R&I, and it's refreshing when you don't have to fight over every change.--Victor Chmara (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SudoGhost 13:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
There is a discussion concerning an issue you have been involved in here: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.10.133 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with Mathsci
You should not expect to be able to resolve anything with Mathsci in his user talk. You clearly aren't aware of the history of this user, but you might get a sense of it by looking at the discussion here. In particular the comments from SightWatcher, Only in Death, and Trevelyan's final comment here. The behaviour The Devil's Advocate is complaining about at AE, in which Mathsci follows him from place to place in order to try to get him sanctioned, is something Mathsci does to everyone who has opposed in the R&I topic. In addition to The Devil's Advocate and SightWatcher, two earlier examples of editors he's done this to are User:Miradre and user:Ludwigs2.

This will probably happen to you also, if you try to disengage from the race and intelligence topic area. You can expect it to happen even if you've had nothing to do with the topic area for the past year, because that's how long SightWatcher had been disengaged from the topic while Mathsci kept pursuing him.

Sorry for having to be so dire, but you need to understand what you've gotten yourself into. There isn't much you can do about it at this stage, but in one of his last comments in the linked arbitration thread The Devil's Advocate said he was considering starting an RFC/U about Mathsci, so that's probably the logical next step. If you or he needs diffs of Mathsci pursuing his enemies wherever they go on the project, I can provide them, and TrevelyanL85A2 also should be able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.75.73.36 (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Scoring through suspected trolling post by ipsock of Echigo mole concerning me. Please do not restore per motion of the arbitration committee s concerning such postings. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My god, that's a long thread. But I'll read it, and consider it for whatever I do next.  I note the possibility that you're someone else's sockpuppet, so whatever decision I make will be based on what I can infer for myself from that discussion. Zeromus1 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Commment The above message by 211.75.73.36 is from an anonymous proxy in Taiwan. Such proxies are not allowed on wikipedia. In the past proxies of this kind in Australia or China have been operated by Mikemikev, a community banned user. Please do not interact any further with this user. The best plan is to seek help from a member of the arbitration committee, e.g. Elen of the Roads. A motion was recently passed concerning interactions with banned users in the area of WP:ARBR&I. Please acquaint yourself with that motion as discretionary sanctions are in force for posts of the above kind:


 * Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.


 * The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides:
 * banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia;
 * the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor;
 * any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.


 * To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor:
 * which was posted within the R&I topic or
 * which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.


 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post. Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given for prior activity and should be logged appropriately.

TrevelyanL85A2 is an indefinitely blocked user under WP:ARBR&I. You should not interact with him. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * After looking into this, I'm more concerned about you than I am about whether Mikemikev posts in my user talk. It looks like you've singled me out the same way you singled out The Devil's Advocate, and now I see some of the long-term implications of that.


 * How do you explain this? Your dispute with Miradre was on race and intelligence articles, and his edits on Groupthink had nothing to do with that.  It looks like because of your R&I dispute with him, you followed him to all of the other articles he was involved in just to revert all his edits.


 * The ruling you quoted to applies to banned editors, and TrevelyanL85A2 is indefinitely blocked. An indefinite block is different from a ban, so I can interact with TrevelyanL85A2 if I want to.  I would like you to please leave both me and The Devil's Advocate alone, and not try to police our edits anymore.  Based on your history I'm unsure about whether you'll respect that, but it would be great if you could turn over a new leaf. Zeromus1 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * An indefinite block is one way that bans are implemented. Aligning yourself with users who have been indefinitely blocked is likely to be an unproductive exercise. aprock (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indefinite blocks are certainly a way to implement a ban, but Trev has not been banned. The restriction also does not prohibit interactions with such editors, only restoring their edits.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the message appear to have been left by Echigo mole, using an illegal method of posting. (Both Echigo mole and Mikemikev appear to have been operating anonymised ipsocks recently.) Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole and note that the motion of the arbitration committee applies to any edits by Echigo mole, a community banned editor with a reputation for lying and malice. Mathsci (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to restore the comment, but who it came from is irrelevant to the concerns others have raised about your own actions. In the linked thread, your conduct was criticized by around ten different editors.  Unless you're suggesting all ten of those editors were also sockpuppets, those concerns seem valid.


 * I don't want to be the next focus of your attention, the way The Devil's Advocate, TrevelyanL85A2 and Miradre have been previously. Please stop doing this to people. Zeromus1 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) That 10 people editing in the in the areas that are put under Arbitration Enforcement share the same uncomplementary views of editors on another side of that issue is not at all unusual. 2) It is good advice to take note of who is giving you advice and whether or not you actually want to follow it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think all of those people actually edit in the race and intelligence area. I've never seen any edits on those articles from Penwhale, Vecrumba, Silver Seren, A Quest for Knowledge, Only in Death, or Cla68.  The Devil's Advocate was the only person criticizing Mathsci there who also edits the articles, and SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 had edited them in the past. Zeromus1 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting commentary/analysis from someone whose first edits in the R&I area would appear to be about 2 weeks ago. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been aware of the topic area for a few months. I actually was aware of it years ago when I used to edit as an IP, but I began paying attention to it again this summer.  One thing that motivated me to register was when Yfever's article Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability was deleted in August, and I thought maybe I could help Yfever find books or articles to write about that were more notable.  See my comment to Yfever here on August 19.  I spent a while editing other things before I began participating in R&I because I wanted some time to re-acquaint myself with Wikipedia's tools before I attempted anything that might be controversial, but I've had some familiarity with these articles more or less since I registered. Zeromus1 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given your statement above, and the unfortunate rate of sock puppetry in the R&I arena, I think I would be remiss if I did not follow up with: 1) while you were editing as an IP, were you ever the subject of any sanctions or blocks? 2) In addition to editing as an IP, have you ever edited under a different account? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP I was editing under was shared by a few people, so it may have been blocked for something someone else did; I'm not able to remember anymore if it ever was. This was around four or five years ago.  But in any case, I was never blocked myself.  And this is the first named account I've used. Zeromus1 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Please see WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Per this AE thread, you are indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with,, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. You may appeal this ban at AE or to the arbitration committee at WP:A/R/CA. T. Canens (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You are named in an Arbcom request
Here. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you edit R&I
Hi Zeromus1. What's the story currently, can edit R&I pages? FiachraByrne (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think so. I'm under an interaction ban, but I can edit R&I pages without violating it. Zeromus1 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban reminder
Zeromus1, please stick to your interaction ban. Even if the arbs seem to be tolerating you participating in that Arbcom thread (which in my opinion they shouldn't), that does not mean you are absolved from your restriction. You can use the Arbcom page for arguing about an appeal or something like that, but you can not use it for bringing forward further criticism against Mathsci. Stop this now.

Incidentally, your suggestion is wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
Administrators: I have blocked this account as a likely sock of Ferahgo the Assassin. All else being equal, I would still be suspicious of this account: it was recently created (after several Race and intelligence contributors were banned), had a very sudden involvement in this topic area (which has historically been plagued by sock-puppetry), and took an even more sudden interest in User:Mathsci. Checkuser evidence compounds these suspicions, by confirming that this account edits from proxies but also from the region where Ferahgo was last known to be.

AGK [•] 23:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying that appeals can only be conducted by e-mail? If I'm blocked as a suspected sock, it can't be appealed on-wiki? Zeromus1 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot appeal the block on-wiki if the block involves checkuser evidence, as publicly revealing such evidence would violate the global checkuser policy that AGK is bound by. NW ( Talk ) 01:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on writing style, I suspect that this user is not FtA, but I would not at all be surprised if this user knows FtA and/or the other users associated with CO/FtA. aprock (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There's just one editor connected to the R&I topic area who I was familiar with before I joined, which is Yfever. I don't know if he's associated with any of the others.  I didn't think my knowing Yfever would be a problem, because he has never been under any sanctions.  I haven't done anything he wouldn't be allowed to do himself if he were still around.


 * I've appealed my block to BASC now, so I'll have to hope they can recognize what you've recognized. I'd be thankful if you could make the same point to them that you've made here. Zeromus1 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "theres just one editor who I was familiar with " doesnt ring with what you told me just a short while ago on these very pages . --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about how I have a general awareness of whether or not an editor has been involved in these articles, then yes, I know that about more people than Yfever. But Aprock was asking about a closer kind of familiarity than that, the alleged off-wiki connections that keep getting brought up.  I could be considered to know Yfever off-wiki, but not anyone else who's edited these articles as far as I know. Zeromus1 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As I noted at AGK's talk, the Zeromus1 account was created on August 19, then miraculously encountered Mathsci at Marseille on September 9, then created Bias in Mental Testing on October 4 (an article concerning a book "based on the fact that the average IQ of African Americans had been consistently found to lie approximately 15 points lower than that of White Americans..."). After an obvious sock posted a "Dealing with Mathsci" message at this talk page, and Zeromus1 responded, Mathsci gave an informative message about the nature of the post. Zeromus1 reacted like a battle-hardened veteran preparing for the next round ("I'm more concerned about you than I am about whether Mikemikev posts in my user talk" ) rather than as a new user might. While it is always possible that Zeromus1 is not FtA, it is certain that the Zeromus1 account was created to continue the same R&I line favored by the FtA group, and to poke Mathsci. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Man, believe whatever you want to believe. If there is one thing I've learned here in the past month, it is that bad faith will generally be assumed about any editor who tries to contribute in a meaningful way to R&I related articles, especially if they attract Mathsci's attention.  The fact that I registered recently is convenient to bring up now, but I don't believe it would matter if I had registered longer ago, because many of the same things also are assumed about The Devil's Advocate who's been registered for years.


 * BASC now knows my real name, my job position, where I live, and where I work. I can give them more information about myself if they need it.  If they think I displayed a battleground attitude in how I reacted to Mathsci bringing me up at AE (which was the context of the sock posting in my user talk) they can also sanction me for that, as long as I'm given a chance to defend myself in public.  But at the moment I'm blocked as a sock of a specific other user, when I can demonstrate that I'm not this person. Zeromus1 (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom unblock appeal
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock.

For the Arbitration Committee.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So there is nothing I can do to participate in Wikipedia again, ever? Even if I have nothing to do with either Mathsci or the R&I topic from now on?  Relatively speaking, neither of these things are that important to me.  I can just stick to articles about Tolkien and related topics from now on if the alternative is for everyone to assume I'm a sock of this banned user.  (Which incidentally is a topic that Ferahgo the Assassin never showed any interest in.) Zeromus1 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to e-mail me the identifying information you sent to them so I can do some independent checking on the sockpuppet accusations?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I sent it to you. Thanks for offering to look into this. Zeromus1 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)