Alon12

Hi

About our discussion

Do you think that is necessary to take this to a noticeboard? Just wondering, because you don't listen, and keep removing a source that clearly states that 55% of White Americans have non-white ancestry, and over this, you are adding things that aren't included in the works cited based on nothing Aergas (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The original article over a year ago specifically referred to 'white mexicans' being of predominant european descent rather than 'full european' descent, the link which you use to justify the latter claim is not satisfied by the source. As the source only refers to the 1808 spanish colonial rule census of criollos relative to the 20th century census. It says nothing about those who were considered europeans under the casta for having 7/8ths european ancestry. The burden of proof would be on you to show that the definition of criollo itself changed to exclude those of 7/8ths european ancestry. Furthermore, the sources you refer to are based on 'african-americans'. It's not accurate. Alon12 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"By comparison, 48 percent who self-reported as Caucasian had more than 95 percent European American ancestry" Tell me why do you think the cite i just wrote is about African Americans. Aergas (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not thorough. It does not give details, for what the 52% would be, it could be 94 percent, which is still in excess of the requirements to be considered criollo in mexico as per the casta, in any case. Thus, not particularly relevant to mention. Alon12 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing that you are saying right now has any thorough details, in fact, there is zero details about anything you claim in the sources that we can use, the only things you are basing your arguments on is on "it could's", we can't work on "what if's" or "it could's", that is original research. I think you have an adversion towards Mexico for some cause unrelated to wikipedia and impends you to think clearly. Aergas (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no such aversion, you appear to be grasping at straws by citing flimsy non-specific sources to rationalize some type of argument in your belief in defending mexico (don't see how you can say this is attacking mexico). The link you cited for mestizos for instance referenced the disparity between the number of criollos in the 1808 census and the 20th century census. The 1808 census officially counted 7/8ths Europeans as Criollos under the Spanish colonial government, all it mentions is that mestizo as a cultural identity absorbed other ethnic groups and castes into the grouping. It does not say that those 7/8ths europeans ceased to be counted as criollos. The Government never officially denounced them post-independence, but they did officially classify them as such, for most of mexico's history, which was in pre-independence. Considering that there is no census anymore, nor any formal definition of what 'white mexican' actually means, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that those individuals under the casta ceased to be counted as criollos, when officially they were counted as such, and later on, never denounced. Furthermore, with regards to 'purity', Spaniards have historical extra-european admixture themselves from West Asia and Africa far in excess of NW Europeans, and the bulk of White Americans are of NW European extraction.Alon12 (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And here we go again, where are the sources for all these things that you are claiming? And now you are bringing the admixture of Spaniards when I already presented you the links to the admixture of White Americans, who have considerably more amount and more recent extra European Admixture than Spaniards do. Aergas (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The original article here claimed 'white mexicans' to be of predominant european ancestry, you added the mestizo cultural article link as the source to claim full-european , yet your source claims no such thing, and in fact, confirms that criollos from the 1808 census under which 7/8ths europeans were officially seen as such were seen no different from criollos in the 20th century census. No distinctions were actually made to provide any proof for your claim.

For Spaniards, see this:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/11/326/abstract

"In general, the Spanish population is similar to the Western and Northern Europeans, but has a more diverse haplotypic structure. " Spaniards were compared in reference to CEU White Americans, and were found to have excess extra-european admixture in comparison.Alon12 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How the article looked one year ago is not a good argument, and the source you talk about says nothing about 7/8 of ancestry, show me where it says something like that. Aergas (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And the article says that the haplotypes were more diverse, not that they were extre-European, and where is the full article to confirm that they were compared to Americans? 80% of what you say is made up. Aergas (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And reading the full text, it doesn't say anywhere that the control group were White Americans [1] what you say is false. Aergas (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How the article looked before an inaccurate source was placed is what is the default. The source is bunk and does not satisfy the claim it alleges of 'full-european' status, so there is no point for the wording associated for the inaccurate source to be posted. The source mentions the 1808 census, under which the Spanish Colonial Casta was implemented. You had a Criollo population, which did include 7/8ths euros on an OFFICIAL basis, as historical data from the Spanish period reveals. Even in popular culture and art, casta paintings were produced in 19th century New Spain as well. You clearly need help in your english language skills and reading comprehension, CEU was specifically mentioned in the study in reference to white americans. If you actually read the study, you will see that. As a non-native english language speaker, you will even see in the abstract that it mentions genetic diversity, if you cannot understand english that is your problem, but the point is that as spaniards are more genetically diverse, it makes them LESS HOMOGENEOUS (so less pure) vs. CEU white americans.

"These results suggest that the general Spanish population,

as characterized in the present study by sampling

from eight different cities widely-spaced across Spain, is

generally similar to other European populations,

although more genetically diverse than Western and

Northern Europeans. " Alon12 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Default is not a real argument, there is no default posture in wikipedia, nor a policy that says it does, and how can you claim that White Americans are the same than Western and Northern Europeans when I brought a source that states that 52% of White Americans have more than 5% non white admixture? And over that you are now explicitly talking about "racial purity", what's your problem? Aergas (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The real argument is that you have no basis for claiming full-european in that link as your link does not mention that, as the historical data officially for Mexico, confirms that 7/8ths europeans were considered criollo, and this status was never rescinded. The burden of proof is on you to show that it was. Occam's razor. Furthermore, that source like I said is not thorough and does not mention what 52% could be, it could be 94%, and still in excess of what would qualify for criollo in mexico. Nevertheless, Spaniards have greater extra-european admixture than NW Europeans, of which white americans mainly descend, so in that context, it's the pot calling the kettle black as spaniards are already less than that. Alon12 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

All the caste denominations were removed on independent Mexico to begin with, have you looked at the options in the census? they were "native" "mixed" and "white" heritage, it has nothing to do with the old spanish caste system. And again you bring the "coulds" when we both know it's not the case that people on the 52% are all 94%, because it's statistically impossible, just like is impossible that White Americans are the same as northern Europeans, and studies exist to prove that, such as the one I already posted. Aergas (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they were removed, and? That does not mean the definition of criollo which originally included those 7/8ths europeans ever changed. The fact that the source compared the total criollo population, which included those 7/8ths euros in the context of the comparison for the 1808 vs 20th century census, proves that it regarded those 7/8ths euros as criollos. Which is completely different from your claim, for which you have no evidence. I'm not saying 'could', I demonstrated an actual comprehensive genetic study, showing spaniards to be more genetically admixed than white americans. You are the one coming with lame 'coulds' by citing non-thorough non-specific shady links, so even if true, all it means is that spaniards have less european ancestry in comparison, so it doesn't mean anything. Alon12 (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you say "and?" the criollo category being removed definitely affected the census, it didn't exist anymore, there was a category for everybody that had mixed ancestry and people who had only European ancestry, is easy to understand, why a 7/8 person would be in mixed category instead of the European one. And the study you linked didn't compared Spaniards to White Americans, drop that already. Aergas (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The link you cite for your claim of full-european heritage, says nothing about 7/8ths europeans being excluded from the blanco category, rather it compares the populations in total from 1808 to the 20th century, and does not distinguish. You are making an artificial distinction that does not and has never existed, if such a distinction does exist in reality, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it, but you don't have it, as it is non-existent. Here is yet another study, explicitly showing iberians from spain having more extra-european genetic admixture vs. CEU white americans.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature13997_SF6.html

Learn to read english, I'm trying to help. Alon12 (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Where does it mention White Americans? CEU does not equal White Americans, that's a completely baseless assumption, and you keep asking where the 7/8 people would fall? they would fall in the mixed category, that's what it is for, and you say that is an artificial distinction made by me when it is clear what the categories where, you come here to troll by chance? I don't think you take as truth or believe anything of what you are saying. Aergas (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, you are only making a fool out of yourself, you clearly have a limited comprehension of english, but in both studies if you were to actually read them , an in fact, the data is found in literally the next link click showing the color on CEU, IBS, etc. and revealing who they stand for, you would see what they represent. No, the article you cite is regarding the idea of 'mestizos' being a cultural identity, not a racial one necessarily, as stated, even natives became 'mestizos', it says nothing about the status of 7/8ths europeans criollos being revoked. You are making this up as part of your own 'original research'. Alon12 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Link it, i want to see where it says that Spaniards were compared to White Americans, this is something you haven't been able to do yet. Aergas (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So, you cannot even click one link over, and be bothered to read an actual genetic study, and see the sourced references for these abbreviations? Just curious why this is? I honestly suspect you have difficulties understanding english. Alon12 (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I already went through all the article, and didn't found anything related to what you talk about, link it, if you can't link it is because you are making things up again. Aergas (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Literally, the next link over.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature13997_SF6.html

to

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13997.html

" CEU, Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry; "

" IBS, Iberian population in Spain;" Alon12 (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding? it doesn't say that CEU = Utah residents, they are separated categories, it's a listing of categories: here it is complete: "GBR, British in England and Scotland; ACB, African Caribbeans in Barbados; ASW, Americans of African ancestry in southwestern USA; CDX, Chinese Dai in Xishuangbanna, China; CEU, Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry; CHB, Han Chinese in Beijing, China; CHS, Southern Han Chinese; CLM, Colombians from Medellin, Colombia; FIN, Finnish in Finland; GIH, Gujarati Indian from Houston, Texas, USA; IBS, Iberian population in Spain; JPT, Japanese in Tokyo, Japan; KHV, Kinh in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; MXL, Mexican ancestry from Los Angeles, USA; PEL, Peruvians from Lima, Peru; PUR, Puerto Ricans from Puerto Rico, and TSI, Toscani in Italy." you write it on a way that it looks like they are the same, but in reality they are separated. Aergas (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And more importantly, this isn't the study about Spaniards, it's a study about Africans, the samples aren't the same. Aergas (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, you need to improve your english, because you barely capable of communicating. That is literally what it says.

From the other source, it is even more specific:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2164-11-326.pdf

" sample acronyms stand for: European (CEU: Utah residents with ancestry

from northern and western Europe; and TSI: Toscani in Italy), African (ASW: African from Southwest USA; LWK: Luhya in Webuye, Kenya; MKK:

Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya; YRI: Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria) and Asian ancestry (CHB: Han Chinese in Beijing, China; CHD: Chinese in Metropolitan Denver,

Colorado; GIH: Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas; JPT Japanese in Tokyo, Japan)."

The other study

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature13997_SF6.html

to

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13997.html

is comparing global data populations as a reference, it is an actual factual genetic study, unlike your mythical unsourced blogs. Alon12 (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Then what you are saying is that somehow that Spaniards have their own characteristic genetics, that are different of Italians aswell makes them, how you said, "less pure"? and above all this, how is that relevant to including the study that states that 52% of White Americans have more than 5% non white ancestry? how does this change that WHite Americans are admixed with Amerindians and Africans? Aergas (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, you need to learn more english. It is explicitly mentioned in english that spaniards are genetically LESS HOMOGENEOUS (literally meaning less pure), vs. white americans in a study that directly compared the two. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2164-11-326.pdf

Furthermore, for whatever admixture, spaniards have an excess of extra-european admixture from west asian and african admixture vs. white americans, as the actual genetic data demonstrates, so spaniards are even less european in comparison no matter what extra-european admixture white americans may also have, spaniards factually genetically have even more extra-european admixture. Alon12 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, heterogeneous does not mean less European, there are many different European ethnicies. And not all White Americans are from Utah, studies exist that have found White Americans to be considerably admixed, and these are as situable as the ones you are bringing here. There is no real reason to not include them. Aergas (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, learn english, and read the study, think before you speak, you're calling those 'white americans mixed', but they are of northwest european ancestry, and it turns out they are less mixed than spaniards, so what does that make them? NW Europeans, who are genetically more European than Spaniards. The majority of white americans are NW Europeans as well, so it's the same effect. Furthermore, you can look at any genetic admixture figure like this, and you'll see the actual result, spaniards have more extra-european genetic ancestry than white americans.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nature13997-sf6.jpg

You don't have any studies suggesting that except for random unsourced blog posts, I'm showing you the REAL genetic data. Alon12 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What i am linking here isn't blog posts, it's genetic studies. And the existence of one study don't disproves the other, different samples exist. And on top of all it's not a valid argument to exclude the study, or any study. Studies have found considerable admixture in White Americans, and these shall be used if that's what the context of the article is about. Aergas (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You are posting blog links, I'm posting real genetic studies from actual scientific journals, all you have is contradicting ill-sourced heresy, that does not even mention what proportion of ancestry 52% may have, so it's completely inaccurate. You have no such studies, and for whatever studies, when white americans are directly compared to spaniards, it is found that spaniards have considerably more admixture than white americans, therefore also spaniard descendants, by default have considerably more admixture. So, the context is that as spaniards are considerably more admixed than white americans, it is a moot comparison, because those spaniard descendants are even more admixed. So, as per the logic, if a study says 95%, by definition, spaniards would be even less than that in the context than even 95%, as spaniards are proven to be more admixed. Alon12 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on WP:DRN. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Accusing another editor of vandalizing a page at the same time as requesting dispute resolution for a content dispute is not helpful, and is likely to poison the dialog that you are requesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This individual has also made personal insults towards me, and while I actually try to reason with him by providing referenced data from scientific journals, his solution is to simply attack me on pure ad-hominems in messages to other administrators, rather than attempting to understand the context and content. Alon12 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If that is true then you should both be blocked or otherwise banned from Wikipedia. This is no place for attacks by any person in any circumstance. GregKaye 10:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mexicans of European descent. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Stop edit-warring and discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My comment at WP:AN3

Please see my suggestion that both of you be blocked unless you accept a voluntary ban from this topic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response from you before deciding how to close this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Mexicans of European descent. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The full report is at WP:AN3. You have engaged in long-term edit warring and failed to make effective use of dispute resolution. In my closure I accepted some advice from User:Robert McClenon. He is familiar with the dispute since he was the volunteer who handled the DRN case. Any admin can lift this block if you will agree to a voluntary ban from the topic of Mexicans of European descent on all pages of Wikipedia, including talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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).

Alon12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no reason for me to be blocked, all I did, was simply report another user who had been engaged in an edit war with someone else. So, what is the rationale? If anything, for that specific edit war, the 2 people involved in that specific edit war should have been blocked, logically, not me. Furthermore, with regards to past warnings on edit wars, I did in fact follow those warnings, and did not edit the article anymore after that point, however, the other user continued to edit the article, despite also being warned, and had engaged in edit wars with other users, which is why I reported it to 3rr, so it does not make much sense for me to be banned, when I did not engage in any edit war. I have made comments on the other user violating WP:CIR, which were not addressed[2], despite WP:CIR being used as a valid citation in other 3rr disputes. Since when is it possible to ban someone for NOT engaging in an edit war? I did not make any edits to the page in question for the particular dispute. The edit war I reported from a 3rd party perspective was about a conflict between Jytdog and Aergas. Is this making Wikipedia history, banning someone for not engaging in an edit war, but rather simply reporting it? Perhaps this may cause less third party editors in the future to even report future edit wars between 2 other users, which doesn't sound too healthy for the Wikipedia community.

Decline reason:

My advice is to accept that you have been locked in a slow burning edit war over the Mexicans of European descent article. I think your best chance of an unblock is to agree not to edit the article, and either form a consensus on the talk page, or pursue dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

• I see an edit-conflict resulted in my over-writing an unblock request that had already been declined. I am restoring the original decline message, which would have remained there all along if I had seen it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Review by Chillum

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).

Alon12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you look at what happened with that separate dispute "JamesBWatson" has mentioned, both me and the other user, received warnings. The report for 3rr I gave for this new particular dispute, was between 2 completely different users, as I mentioned previously. So, I received my warning and stopped. But, the other user did not, and I saw him continue to engage in edit wars, with other users as well, which is why I reported it for 3rr, as he did not listen to the warnings he was also given. So, you see, the difference is I listened to my warning and stopped, the other user did not.

Decline reason:

You have again not addressed the reason for the block. You were edit warring and that is something people get blocked for. While the duration is longer than normal for a first block it is well within discretion. I think your choices are to wait out the block and then avoid edit warring in the future or to accept and abide by @EdJohnston:'s offer "The block on either party could be lifted if they would promise to observe a voluntary topic ban from the topic of Mexicans of European descent everywhere on Wikipedia[3]".

User:PhilKnight gave you good advice in your last unblock request. Chillum 21:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Instead of an "unblock" template, you have used an "unblock reviewed" template, which is for an administrator to use after your unblock request has been reviewed, and either accepted or declined. Luckily, I checked back on this page, and saw your mistake, so I am correcting it. If I had not seen it, then the page would not have been listed in the list of unblock requests waiting for review, so very probably no administrator would ever have seen it. I shall also raise the point you make with the blocking administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be open to any proposal that guarantees that the long-running dispute between these two editors will come to an end. One way that could happen is that one or both will accept a topic ban from the article. Another would be any route that is guaranteed to lead to a negotiated solution without tens of thousands more words of discussion. I don't see User:Alon12's objection about the timing of warnings to be basic to this issue. The dispute has been going on for nearly four weeks and it's hard to see how either party could be unaware of the trouble they were causing. Alon12 begins from a position of reduced credibility because his account was only created on 24 December and his first Wikipedia edit was on Mexicans of European descent. Perhaps he could clarify how he happened to join Wikipedia at that time and become interested in precisely this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I did listen to the warnings, and did stop with regards to the 3rr, which is the point of the ban, while the other user did not. So, that argument in and of itself for the purpose of this ban doesn't make much sense, as I did listen to the warnings. If you want to discuss banning me and the other party in question for a separate issue (you have said in the past, that if you had the power, you would ban both me and him on a separate issue, so that may come from somewhat of a biased position, as the arguments between me and the other party did over-extend to the point that the initial issues could perceptively have been lost in translation, so you might not have gotten all the facts), then allow me to discuss this issue with you and other admins, perhaps, on a level playing field, as I technically did listen to the 3rr warrning, so it is not legitimate to ban to ban me for this specific 3rr violation, as it is something I did not commit, while the other user continued to violate 3rr with other users too. With regards to the other issues, not related to this 3rr in question, that is really a separate topic. I saw some basic inconsistencies in the article, for instance, I know this is a content issue, technically, but for one of the first lines, it mentioned something explicitly not stated in the article. It was referring to another group as 'mestizos', the line stated 'another group called mestizos maintaining over 90% european admixture'. Yet, if you look at the source of the article, it explicitly mentioned that no ethnic or independent group identified was used in the study, to begin with. I thought this would be an easy edit, since it is something clearly not mentioned in the source, which anyone could clearly see. If you look at 3rr disputes, various parties have used WP:CIR as a valid reason for their edits. Furthermore, as you can see, this is not simply an issue with me, this is an issue with the other user in question vs. everyone else. Even Robert, who moderated this issue in the DRN, was forced to admit on the Aergas talk page, that the user presented WP:CIR violations literally within the last day, following my initial allegations of him violating WP:CIR yesterday . So, I do believe that the WP:CIR case I made for the other user, still stands and should be addressed.[4] Again, that is technically a separate issue, not related to the 3rr in question, but I am willing to discuss it openly with the administration if it is demanded of me. Just tell me when and where. But, for this specific 3rr ban, as I did not continue to make edits, and actually listened to the warnings, it literally does not make sense for me to be banned on this particular issue, which you have even admitted in your last reply is more about a 'long term dispute', rather than this particular 3rr issue. Alon12 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Alon12 is saying one of: (1) he didn't violate 3RR and Aergas did, and so he shouldn't be blocked; (2) he and Aergas were both edit-warring and engaged in tedious unproductive exchanges, but Aergas was worse, and therefore he should be unblocked; (3) for some other reason, he didn't do anything to get blocked. As to (1), 3RR is a line, but not the only test for edit-warring blocks, and there was edit-warring, and tedious unproductive exchanges. As to (2), that isn't an argument for unblocking, maybe an argument that Aergas got off easy, but that isn't an unblock argument. As to (3), I am not sure what the other argument is. It appears that he is using this talk page to engage in further sniping, and should be warned about loss of talk page. The stupid baseless allegation of sock-puppetry by another editor has nothing to do with his own block. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

What I'm saying is that as I did not conduct the edit war in the context of report, and 2 other users did, it does not make sense for me to be banned as a conclusion of an issue not involving me. With regards to the 'sniping', Ed, specifically wanted to know why I posted on wikipedia in the first place, and I said that it was a separate issue, but I explained part of it anyway, at his request. So, this is not about 'sniping', this was a request from him. Again, if there are other potential reasons for why I should be banned in anyone's view, it is not related to this particular dispute, and should be addressed in another context, but this context is not related to me in particular. Alon12 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that it is accepted that I did not make the violations with regards to this particular subject, I would say the fair suggestion, at this point, is that if the blocking administrator EdJohnston has issues with me on a separate subject, and cannot maintain impartiality on this particular subject, then he should recuse himself from this situation. If the blocking administator does have issues with me on another subject, then he is free to request a ban for myself or anyone else on a separate subject, at the proper forum. Even another administrator 'JamesBWatson' has stated that I am correct with regards to the nature of this particular conflict. "However, the editor has now posted another unblock request, in which he says that, unlike his opponent in the edit war, he stopped edit-warring once he received a warning about edit-warring. Checking the editing history, that seems to me to be true." Alon12 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this ever going to be addressed? I just want to know the answer to a simple question. As the blocking administrator has admitted that the block instituted against me was not for the 3rr (which I did not commit and the blocking administrator has not denied that I did not commit it) but for some unrelated separate issue, is it possible to justify a 3rr block on the basis of another issue? If it is possible, per the rules, then tell me so, and I'll stop posting here, I've noticed that Robert with his threats of 'extending' my ban is nowhere to be seen since he made that threat, suggesting that it is in fact, not possible. Can any admin answer this? EdJohnston or JamesBWatson. Alon12 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your activity in article and talk space

Alon12, between the creation of your account on 24 December and 15 January you edited Mexicans of European descent 12 times. Of these twelve edits, nine appear to be reverts. You have no contributions to any other article, and you appear to be a WP:Single purpose account.

You’ve posted to the article talk page 70 times and your total contribution is about 30,000 characters. In Wikipedia space you’ve posted over 50 times with a total of about 50,000 characters. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum, and we have better things to do than play host to endless discussions between people who show no willingness to compromise.

You don't want to accept a ban from this article that would allow you to be immediately unblocked. If you are offering no other assurances, I fail to see why it's in the interest of Wikipedia to allow you to continue your previous activities. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your postings in your talk page since you were blocked from other space have the quality of ranting. You haven't said anything that implies that you want to contribute constructively either to Mexicans of European descent or to any other article. Blocked editors who use their talk page to complain in general, as you are doing, rather than to request unblock constructively, typically have talk page access revoked. This warning has little or nothing to do with whether the other editor is being more disruptive, but it does have to do with your edits being disruptive. If you post anything more here other than agreement to take a break from this article to be unblocked elsewhere, I will go to WP:ANI again to ask another administrator to revoke your talk page access (and possibly to lengthen your block). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the genetic data I posted, for instance, in the second to last new section I've created on the talk page for the article. It has been in fact, referenced by other members. So, I did provide constructive new data which the community is now in the process of implementing. I would like to post on other articles in the future, but I did not have the free time in light of the situation. I understand this is not a forum, and I would like to genuinely help the community. I do not see why my block should be extended for something I did not commit. If the either of you want to address me on this subject, I would be more than happy to explain at the proper forum, Robert McClenon is saying I am ranting here, but EdJohnston is deliberately asking me to explain my reasoning. If you do not want me to explain, then why are you asking? Again, even a third party administrator JamesBWatson has also said that I am technically not in violation of the 3rr. To be honest, the 3rr issue is all I want to talk about, but what is happening here is that other administrators are asking me to explain my reasoning for another subject, specifically, and then saying that I am 'ranting'. How does that work? I agree, you should not ask me for me reasoning for any other subject here, simply discuss the 3rr issue alone, of which, I am not in violation, hence there is no reason for the ban on the basis of the 3rr issue. Just tell me flat out that you want me banned for another subject, that's fine, I'm willing to discuss that to if you want me too, but you cannot use another subject to specifically justify a 3rr ban. Alon12 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do, ignore an administrator's requests(mind you, the same administrator who is blocking me and has admitted that his reason for blocking me is not about about the 3rr per se, but about some other issue at play)? Then follow them, then hypocritically get banned? My position was very simple from the getgo regarding this basic topic. As I did not contribute to this particular conflict in question per the report, it does not make sense for me to banned in the context of the report. If you want me to stop posting here, then let's just make it clear that it is not about the 3rr. But, you cannot use a 3rr to block someone for another issue, is that correct? I'm not trying to argumentative, I just want to genuinely know if that is possible. Alon12 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your unblock template is still active. It places your talk page in Category:Requests for unblock. Any admin who finds your request convincing can proceed to unblock you. There could be ways to make your unblock request more persuasive, and I could provide advice if you wish it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So how am I supposed to respond then? So, I should post directly inside the box template and make edits to that? Alon12 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is what Robert meant. There is no sign he is forwarding this to ANI. If you want to offer to behave differently in the future, please proceed, without fear of adverse consequences merely for offering. I have the authority to unblock you myself if there is any reason to think that the future will be different. Don't worry about the template. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As an example, I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not, but another one of the editors for the page Inhakito, just thanked me for the post I made on your page defending his edits vs. the edit war waged by the other party. [5]. So, you see, I am more than willing to cooperate with the community. Alon12 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for your offer to behave differently in the future. Why should be believe you'll be able to find a compromise about Mexicans of European descent when the dispute up till now has been endless? Your unwillingness to compromise is firmly on record. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that I get along with other users as I've documented shows that I am more than willing to compromise. It is only one person on the page who hasn't been able to compromise to the extent that he has maintained an unwillingness to compromise with anyone else. To the extent, that even Robert has placed WP:CIR allegations against him, following the ones I originally made. Alon12 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTTHEM, blaming other people in an unblock request is rarely successful. The fact that one person left a positive comment for you is no guarantee we won't have another 15,000 characters of postings from you after you're unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I will say then that this whole issue was a misunderstanding. You see, as a new user, at the time, I was not aware of specific classifications such as WP:CIR. I was further confused by this when Robert tried to say I was being unfriendly and warned me, when if you look at the criticisms I've made, they were all regarding legitimate WP:CIR allegations, I actually did not even know that at the time. I now have learned from my past, instead of responding to someone found in violation of WP:CIR in a vain attempt to convince him with intellectual justifications, it makes more sense to simply file a WP:CIR claim and let the administrators handle it, is that correct? Alon12 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I see you mention WP:NOTTHEM, but I am not the subject the dispute reported in the 3rr, it is between 2 other people, so technically, it does not involve me. So again, how can I be banned for a 3rr I did not commit? Alon12 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Aergas

Let someone else deal with any issues about that editor. Administrators and other editors will see that you and he have a history of antagonism. Leave him alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon , did you see that latest edit he made to the article [6]? Part of the conclusion of our ORIGINAL DRN[7] was that it must be included in the article the '7/8ths european descent' line, yet he has specifically removed it from the body in the latest version. He has every intention of engaging in an edit war. Alon12 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, it's not a 'history of antagonism', it's simply a history of his incompetence under WP:CIR, I even saw your edit in the talk page, stating there was no relevance to include foreign nationalities in the article, that is exactly what I suggested in the DRN, do you recall? Furthermore, the genetic data I posted was also incorporated into the article. This continuous edit warring shows that this conflict is more about him. Alon12 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alon12. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aergas.
Message added 18:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Your recent editing history 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 get 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aergas (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mexicans of European descent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chihuahua. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)