173.246.210.93

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Warning

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

Blocked

What are you talking about at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist) when you say the consensus is that racial hereditarian authors are inherently fringe or unreliable, based on a bunch of diffs all concerning edits by one particular editor? It doesn't make any sense, and yet you've been seriously edit warring to restore your comment whenever it's removed. You're trolling, and continuing your harassment of that editor. You have been blocked for a month. When you return, you'd better leave your target alone. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC).

@Bishonen: All of these edits have stood for the past year, so they are supported by consensus per WP:IMPLICIT. Also, the removals from the Recent human evolution were supported in this discussion. Whether you keep me blocked is up to you, but I would like you to acknowledge that I've accurately described this situation. 173.246.210.93 (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, let me clarify a little more about why I was making that argument. I wasn't trolling. I think it is utterly ridiculous that there is apparently a consensus for this, but that is what the current consensus appears to be, and I'd like other editors to acknowledge that. This relates to the point I made here. The consensus to classify "racial hereditarianism" as a fringe theory is producing outcomes that are of dubious compatibility with Wikipedia's policies, but there hasn't been much discussion about the full meaning of this decision, in areas such as the baby boomers or cadborosaurus articles. I made that comment because I think the true meaning of the current consensus needs to be understood more fully. 173.246.210.93 (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

So you weren't "trolling", merely indulging in WP:STRAWSOCK? Got it. I have nothing else to say. Bishonen | tålk 13:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC).

No, WP:STRAWSOCK describes presenting a deliberately false or irrational argument. What I've said is, as far as I can tell, a completely accurate summary of what the current consensus means. As long as that consensus exists, it's reasonable to expect it to be acknowledged and followed in a consistent manner, and my personal feelings about it are irrelevant to that requirement.

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

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

---