User talk:2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3

DS alert - climate change

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI DS alerts

FYI, the above section "DS Alert - climate change" does not mean there is a problem, necessarily. The DS Alert is an FYI thing only. However, now that you are on notice, you're expected to abide by WP:ARBCC#Principles, and beware of starting edit wars by reverting a revert of your changes without first getting consensus by discussion on the talk page, like you did here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

TY2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And here. You are now pretty close to a WP:3RR violation - please stop and discuss. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, you become blockable for any WP:Edit war, which starts at 1RR. The 3RR rule is just a silver bullet way to show an EW is underway, but blocking can happen even before you cross the 3RR threshold. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, I get it, it is just annoying. I also discoverd the "extra sanctions" on the entire topic, so TY again for the head's-up. The edit-war is silly because I changed one word in a graphic and I changed it for a pretty explicit violation of facts, and I don't believe that the editors who are reverting me are even checking-on that edit lol, because it is pretty clear so if they want to have me blocked or banned I'm willing to take that hit because it is just so stupid.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the more frequent filers of complaints under WP:ARBCC. If I were filing such a complain about you right this moment, I would cite that remark as evidence of BATTLE mentality. If someone is wrong, maybe you could patiently articulate the source and quote the pithy language from the source, and then shut up? Let the sources do the talking. Unless you want to be topic-banned, then by all means let loose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a question about the probation on the topic---certain number of edits on articles per day, talk pages related to articles, and/or overall topic?? I've never noticed one of these category sanctions WP:SANCTION before and it is a little bit different than normal locked-up articles. And it is a little annoying like I mentioned when making a GF edit and immediately having multiple editors revert. I appreciate your concern, but I'm thinking that the topic maybe does need a wider look-see, maybe not, but there are some behaviors that are not normally tolerated on WP which seem to be the norm for this particular well-protected/guarded topic that maybe it would be a good thing to make a complaint?

Not trying to "battle"-if that isn't going to help the project but I'd be willing to sacrifice my editing privileges for a short time if it led to improvements and further understanding2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm digging in a dry well here. This ends my efforts at helpful advice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

editing again to add (these are different editing rules!)WP:GS/CC and superseded by ARBCOM WP:ARBCCPages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation: Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring on scientific opinion on climate change. 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.  MastCell ^Talk 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous example of wasting everyone's time because I have to believe that that kind-of reverting activity is some kind-of prank, nobody-especially an entire group of editors on a scientific article could be so DUMB as to not understand my point as (I hope) they were all pretending to be. A 24 hour block is really not enough to complain about, but I am complaining about the general stupidity of the edit-war. A one-word change? really? I feel mentally violated by the editors of that article-violated by their (act?)denseness. 2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=may as well keep me blocked so that I have something to complain about since yes i am "guilty" of 3rr, but the situation was unbelievable stupidity}}2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The situation only became stupid because you failed to understand how we build content here. Being "right" isn't enough. We build content collaboratively, and when another editor contests your edit by reverting it, you must discuss the matter with them on the article's talk page, rather than making your edit again. Failure to do so is edit warring, and we don't allow edit warring, even if you are a Nobel Prize winner who is 1000% right and the rest of the world is wrong. (I have gotten a Nobel Prize winner blocked for edit warring!) You don't get to force your edit into the article, no matter how "right" it may be, and that can be a word or a comma. Force does not work here. You can be right and still be blocked or even indefinitely banned. You must discuss the disputed edit and reach a consensus with other editors. That's the way it works here. If you are right and can prove it using reliable sources, then you will likely be able to convince the others and you'll get them to agree. Then, and only then, do you get your way. See WP:BRD for more info. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify something: "climate change researchers" is a small subset of "climate researchers". The sources deal with both, and the 97% refers to the whole group, not just the small subset. All climate change researchers are "climate researchers", but not all climate researchers are "climate change researchers", even if they might at times deal with it and write about it. You tried to narrow it down too much, and thus the statement became inaccurate. By keeping the statement broad we were faithful to the sources, and the statement would always be accurate. If you had properly discussed the matter, and not edited until a consensus was reached, you wouldn't be in trouble. The consensus was against you, so your attempt to force your edit backfired. Next time, don't do something against the wishes of other editors, unless you get very solid backing from a majority of other editors, and proper WP:Dispute resolution procedures have been followed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

So.... you have a lock on Wikipedia:The Truth? Given your response to the block, I was going to seek a block extension at WP:AE, citing your failure to WP:Assume good faith (AGF being one of our biggie policies). But then I stopped, thinking it would be better to explicitly call your attention to the AGF policy so I can point to this the next time you blast others you disagree with. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you Brangifer for trying to address my problem with the material. I 3rr'd out of frustration, on purpose, and I am aware of the rules. What you are saying about "climate change researchers" being a small subset of "climate researchers" is exactly my point! Where we disagree is not in the "97%", but in the text used below the graphic. No one bothered to answer my question which was "How does correcting the misleading/incorrect text hurt the article?". Although it is true that there was no TP consensus for my edit, I noticed that the "97%" graphic was used on several other articles, and that there have been changes and arguments about that particular graphic. The graphic was brought-up as being WP:OR, I agree and furthermore it is repeatedly admittedly WP:SYN. I'm also seeing undertones of sexism and racism if I really take a hard-look at the graphic. At 1st I tried to correct the textual inaccuracy, and save the graphic-----but after spending all of this time on it, I think that my only alternative at this point is to take it elsewhere from the TP----which I was trying to avoid by making my simple factual edit, and just try to get the picture yanked from articles since this is taking way too much time anyhow.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And thank-you NewsAndEventsGuy for trying to show me the light. But I did AGF in thinking that the omission of 1 word was an innocent mistake. I repeatedly mentioned that I do not understand what was so "wrong" about my edit. And there was an edit-conflict at the moment I was blocked where my comment asking that instead-of the change that I was trying to edit, that I did not have a problem with working towards some OTHER text being used with the graph. In my reply above, and after thinking about it some more, I am re-visiting my original feelings about the inclusion of the graph in any articles, for several reasons. So from here on out, I am committed to doing-away with the picture entirely. Since you have been so helpful, have you got any ideas about where my complaint would have a fair discussion? Last time that I checked DRN was not overburdened, but I would take my revised complaint to the article's TP first I guess, taking your advice to AGF. Personally, I try to stay far away from ridiculous arguments and contentious editors, because I feel like it is a waste of everyone's time, but the global warming topic's representation on WP is showing the results of the battles that have gone on trying to defend the integrity of the articles, and imo although I am trying to AGF, there are enough protections in place to allow a little bold-editing without being overly protective of every little thing.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:MULTI (and the rest of the WP:TPG), then make your points at the article talk page. If you are still dissatisfied, gradually work your way up the WP:Dispute resolution process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK-done thanks-I guess, but I'll just let you know again that I broke the rules out of frustration, on purpose. Except I am still blocked from article TP. Previous discussion about info. contained in the graphic. (and another graphic) may be found here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change for ref. I don't want to duplicate a discussion that has already been resolved. So I'm not even sure if the TP for the article which I 3rr'd is the right place, although specifically I am concerned with the use of the text on that particular graph, and that particular graph, on that exact page, I'm also hoping that the graph could be re-tooled to address my claim of a perceived possible sexist and racist bias. if possible-or scrapped from use in all WP articles.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

So you admit that you had a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality going into this. You deliberately did it, which is a very egregious WP:POINT violation. This doesn't make things better for you, but worse. Even worse than that, and something which concerns me, is that you brought disrepute on your own cause. This will make it harder to ever make the change you wish. You really need to rethink your priorites. Act, don't react. Think before you act. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No i did not have a battle-mentality going into it at all. That happened after being reverted a few times by different editors, and out of frustration. Also-I could maybe be found guilty of being a little pointy, but I was actually trying to avoid further disruption to the project by committing an action that would just take me out of it, as I was not ready to just walk-away from it voluntarily. As stated here I generally avoid contentious topics and try to make needed edits that improve the project. But I approached this particular topic as a user/reader, and what I found was a subject that appears to be "owned" or protected depending how you look at it by a segment of editors. My priorities as an editor remain the same, to help build an encyclopedia, and that is in service to the users and readers. I'm still not finished navigating the topic on WP as a reader and the fact that it took a few days to begin to get up to speed as far as WP and how the topic is treated here, worries me about how reader/user-friendly the topic is. 2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greengrounds, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

When I filed the SPI, I believed this IP account was a Greengrounds sock, but now I think otherwise, and I modified the request in the SPI accordingly. When it's all over, I'll probably say more here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

---