User talk:Wajajad

June 2014

Hello, I'm WeijiBaikeBianji. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions reminder

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Just letting you know. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Do you really want suggestions for more "prurient" sources to add to Wikipedia source lists? I can suggest plenty of sources that you would enjoy reading, and learn a lot from, even though they are not prurient. Both the Intelligence Citations source list and the Anthropology and Human Biology Citations source list are based on the practice of academic libraries in acquiring authoritative upper-division textbooks and practitioner's handbooks that evaluate and comment on the latest primary research findings. (My main criterion for adding sources to those source lists is what academic librarians have concluded about what sources are most reliable and useful, although I am always chronically behind in adding new sources to those lists that I have already read.) The sources already listed in these ever growing lists include enough mainstream sources of varied points of view that you could hardly go wrong by reading a few and using them to guide your further reading on any subject of interest to you. I will, of course, be glad to hear suggestions of more sources from any Wikipedian as new sources continue to be published, or as each of us notices gaps in coverage in existing Wikipedia articles that could be filled by referring to older sources. The key idea is to make sure that "prurient" is not the adjective we use to define good sources, but rather " reliable". See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freud struck unexpectedly. I meant "prudent" as in relevant, reliable, wise to include. And your list strikes me as not quite fitting the bill. I have reason to believe that you have ignored some good suggestions of sources for your list. Indeed, mainstream sources that you would oppose the inclusion of if you had a fundamental problem with it due to your POV. The history of intelligence related fields has been a back and forth exchange between hereditarian and environmentalist academics. Your sourcelist would have us believe that the hereditarian sources are nonexistent, even though they are very much relevant today. A truly reliable and comprehensive source list would include many more sources to represent the hereditarian side. One thing I would recommend you do, in addition, is to add book reviews to your sourcelist. It is all well and good to include whichever book that pleases you and your POV, but the reviews from mainstream journals will decide if the book has any relevance outside of the article on itself.Wajajad (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can surely agree with each other here that the reliable sources are what matter. Even if someone disagrees with that idea, it's not only a good idea, it's one of the core content policies here on Wikipedia. On that basis, I'm happy to work with you and with any other editor cordially, assuming good faith, and digging line-by-line into the best available sources. A close reading of the best published works on these contentious topics is indeed prudent, and a helpful form of self-education. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

It is transparently obvious that you edit-warred on the Race and Genetics article, editing 6 times as an IP address and 2 times as yourself over 3 days. And then attempted to get others in trouble over at WP:AE. This is not OK. You are blocked from editing for 72 hours. This is an arbitration enforcement block; you were previously warned [1] on Oct 6 2014 that these sanctions are in effect.

Other administrators: the usual AE sanctions special handling applies to this, please seek consensus at WP:AE or ANI prior to undoing this block. Note that I would have imposed the block ANYWAYS even if DS were not enabled and he had not been warned, but it is under AE as it applies here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I've been blocked without so much as a checkuser investigation. You can see the edits I've made to my sourcelist alongside checkuser data and see that the other 192 IP on the R&G page is not me, and thus this accusation of edit warring and sockpuppeting is baseless.Wajajad (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can rule out sockpuppetry properly without the Checkuser review of logged-in editing data. Which I cannot do, but have requested. If they confirm you are not the IPs then the block can be lifted immediately. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the checkuser, then. Wajajad (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Georgewilliamherbert, regarding your comment here, I've recently used three separate IP ranges: 192.253.*, 107.6.*, and 43.228.*. An example of the second IP range was my comments in this discussion [2], and here is an IP I've used in the 43.228 range: [3] Are all three of these IP ranges in the same netblock as Wajajad? 192.253.251.23 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those IP ranges are mine, has Georgewilliamherbert even tried to investigate this as opposed to throw around blocks based on essentially zero evidence? Wajajad (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Checkuser can verify what IP addresses you are using, Wajajad. They looked. They declined to unblock you and said I had to act based on behavioral evidence. Which I did to start with. If you still assert that you're not related to those IP addresses you need to work with the checkuser. Note that neither they nor I have any right to publish your IPs or ask you to publish your IPs, that's considered private info and only released under limited circumstances. You can check their comment on WP:AE and email them if you want them to clarify with you what they believe they found. They won't tell me, per policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wajajad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet of the other IP account who also edited the Race and Genetics page and was involved in the content removal dispute. As pointed out by him, all of the IP ranges he's edited under do not correspond to the IP ranges I have ever edited under, whenever I've edited as an IP user (always within a Canadian IP range) Wajajad (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm afraid I could not approve this unblock if I wanted to. Your block, as stated above, is an arbitration enforcement action. An unblock is only doable if consensus is achieved here, here or here. ceradon (talk • edits) 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Admins who respond to this request, please see my comment at AE: [4]

In June, I updated information in the Asprise OCR article. [5] Has Wajajad ever shown any interest in that article? As far as I know, race and genetics is the only article he and I both have edited. 192.253.251.57 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to decline the unblock request, but Ceradon beat me to it. However, in case you make any more unblock requests, to help any administrators reviewing those requests, I am posting here some of what I found when I checked the evidence in order to review the above unblock request. Your persistent insistence on checking the geolocation of the IP addresses used has actually strengthened the case against you, because it led me to check up on the IP addresses, and I found that they are allocated to a company providing a VPN. Let's consider two possible scenarios: (Scenario 1) Two different editors are wrongly accused of sockpuppetry, one of them just happens for some unspecified reason to be editing via a VPN rather than directly, and both of them, quite independently of one another, keep harping on about checking the background of the IP addresses. One of them knows that he or she is using a VPN, and therefore knows full well that the geolocation of the IP addresses will be misleading, but nevertheless chooses to keep quiet about that, and keep on asking for that geolocation to be checked. (Scenario 2) Just one edit-warring editor does some editing directly and some via a VPN in order to appear to be two different people, and, knowing that this has the result that the IP-geolocation evidence will be misleading, therefore keeps on insisting that the case be assessed on the basis of that evidence. Indeed, since making the IP evidence was the whole purpose of editing via a VPN, checking the IP background is exactly what the editor would hope would be done. OK, so which scenario is more plausible? Of course, that is not on its own proof of IP-sockpuppetry, but when there is already very strong evidence (only part of which has been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), that is one more confirmation of what was pretty certain anyway. Also, the emphasis placed by the editor using the VPN on the fact that the IP addresses in question have edited a topic that this account has never edited adds even more strongly to the evidence. That editor must know that the VPN is available to be used by other people, so citing that as a reason was disingenuous. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's IP ranges lead to VPN services, exactly?

I wasn't, myself, asking you to check the geolocation of the IPs. My point was that Wajajad hasn't edited from these IP ranges, period. When Georgewilliamherbert referred [6] to my argument as being that I was "geographically distinct from Wajajad", this was his interpretation of what I'd said, but it wasn't what I'd actually said. Please also understand that when I bring up the other topics I've edited, it is directly in response to Georgewilliamherbert's claim [7] that "The IPs (above, and the ones which revert-warred the content in question) have only edited Race and Intelligence topics". Given that this claim was part of his original rationale for the block, how can pointing out that it's false also be a rationale for the block?

I see that you've now blocked one of my three IP ranges, so this will be my last comment on the issue for now, because I don't want to be guilty of block evasion. If there is something suspicious about the IPs that I've used, then you can block them if you must, but why block Wajajad as well? These articles evidently have a history of sock puppetry by many users, and in the AE thread ArtifexMayhem linked to a page showing Mikemikev has used more than a hundred such accounts. Wajajad has no history of sock puppetry. I'm not actually a sock of any of these users, but frankly, assuming that I'm Mikemikev would make a lot more sense than assuming that I'm Wajajad. 107.6.121.145 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

A checkuser has reported here that the allegation you were socking through IPs is not confirmed. Accordingly, I am lifting this block. (Ordinarily I would consult with the administrator who placed the block first, but he authorized in advance that the block be reversed if checkuser yielded this result.) Good luck with your future editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely OK with the unblock under the further-further clarified circumstances. Thanks NYBrad.
Wajajad, I would like to apologize for having lumped you in with the IP editors based on the behavioral evidence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]